Opinion
(Spring Riding, 1803.)
When an infant is sued in equity, the practice is to serve a bill on him, when he has no guardian, and then appoint a guardian to answer the bill: but if the guardian has not had a copy of the bill, time will be given him to answer.
DEFENDANT was an infant, and was served with the bill in equity before the last term; and at the last term Davis was appointed his guardian to answer and defend the suit for him.
And now Mr. Plummer moved that he was not bound to answer at this term, because he had not been served with a copy of the bill.
E contra: The practice is to serve the bill on the defendant, and then appoint him a guardian to answer that bill. There is no necessity to serve the guardian with a new bill. And counsel cited 1 Harrison, 474, and Kay v. Black, in this Court.
doubted; but applying to Baker to know how the practice was, and he saying it was to serve the bill on the infant only, his Honor then appoint him a guardian to answer that bill. There is no necessity to serve the guardian with a new bill. And counsel cited 1 Harrison, 474, and Kay v. Black, in this Court.
NOTE. — The court of equity has power to appoint the clerk and master guardian to infant defendants to appear and answer for them, even against his consent. Muir v. Stuart, 5 N.C. 440.