State ex rel. McLeod v. Maurer, 215 N.C. 795 (1939)

May 24, 1939 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
215 N.C. 795
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. ALEX H. McLEOD, and All Other Creditors of the Estate of W. W. MAURER, Deceased, Who Desire to Join in the Prosecution of This Action and Contribute to the Expenses Hereof, Relators, and ALEX H. McLEOD, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM MAURER, JR., Administrator of the Estate of W. W. MAURER, Deceased; WILLIAM MAURER, JR., Individually, and His Wife, MRS. WILLIAM MAURER, JR.; JOHN MAURER and His Wife, MRS. JOHN MAURER; DONALD MAURER and His Wife, MRS. DONALD MAURER; ETHEL PLEASANTS and Her Husband, FRANCIS PLEASANTS; EDNA MAURER, J. W. MAURER and R. W. MAURER, Single; E. G. MAYNARD and C. J. JOHNSON, Defendants

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. ALEX H. McLEOD, and All Other Creditors of the Estate of W. W. MAURER, Deceased, Who Desire to Join in the Prosecution of This Action and Contribute to the Expenses Hereof, Relators, and ALEX H. McLEOD, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM MAURER, JR., Administrator of the Estate of W. W. MAURER, Deceased; WILLIAM MAURER, JR., Individually, and His Wife, MRS. WILLIAM MAURER, JR.; JOHN MAURER and His Wife, MRS. JOHN MAURER; DONALD MAURER and His Wife, MRS. DONALD MAURER; ETHEL PLEASANTS and Her Husband, FRANCIS PLEASANTS; EDNA MAURER, J. W. MAURER and R. W. MAURER, Single; E. G. MAYNARD and C. J. JOHNSON, Defendants.

(Filed 24 May, 1939.)

Appeal by defendant from Bivens, J., at December Term, 1938, of Moobe.

Affirmed.

U. L. Spence for plaintiff.

Johnson & McCluer for defendants Maynard and Johnson.

Peb Cubiam.

The plaintiff on behalf of himself and other creditors of the estate of W. ~W. Maurer, deceased, instituted this action against the administrator and heirs at law of W. W. Maurer and the sureties on the administrator’s bond for the determination of questions involved in the settlement of the estate of said decedent. The defendants May*796nard and Johnson, sureties on the administrator’s bond, demurred on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. From judgment overruling tbeir demurrer, the defendants appealed.

The demurrer was properly overruled. C. S., 135; C. S., 456; and C. S., 507. Leach v. Page, 211 N. C., 622, 191 S. E., 349; Robertson v. Robertson, ante, 562.

Judgment affirmed.