{
  "id": 8651586,
  "name": "In the matter of W. D. TROTTER, Public Administrator",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Trotter",
  "decision_date": "1894-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "195",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 N.C. 193"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 3111,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.022452789293781e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31622461386744943
    },
    "sha256": "635ce90b976fdf52723a3d2725dcc049459b1b46f36e48969cde5385678c942b",
    "simhash": "1:3881d5ba90f3e41f",
    "word_count": 559
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In the matter of W. D. TROTTER, Public Administrator."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam :\nWe have examined the authorities cited by counsel with much care, and after due consideration we conclude that his Honor erred in sustaining the action of the Clerk in refusing to accept the bond of Trotter upon the ground stated by him. It is not found that the said Trotter has been in default in any particular, except a failure to renew his bond, and this he offers to do in response to the notice served upon him. Reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. L. M. Scott, for Trotter, appellant.",
      "Messrs. King & Dillard, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In the matter of W. D. TROTTER, Public Administrator.\nRemoval of Public Administrator \u2014 Failure to Renew Bond.\nWhere a Public Administrator, having failed to renew his bond, tendered a bond with sureties in response to a notice served upon him, and it was not found that he was'in default in any other particular, it was error in the Clerk to refuse to accept the bond-so tendered.\nThis is an appeal from the Clerk of the Superior Court for the county of Guilford, heard before his Honor R. W. Winston at chambers in Oxford, N. C., on the_day of July, 1894.\nOn the second day of June, 1894, the Clerk of the Superior Court of said county issued notice to and had it served upon W. D. Trotter, Public Administrator for said county, to show cause, if any he had, why he should not be removed from the office of Public Administrator of said county for having failed to renew his bond as such officer on February 2, 1893, as required by law. The respondent appeared before the Clerk on the 19th day of June, 1894, as required by said notice, and filed his sworn answer, and therein and thereby attempted to show cause why he should not be removed, and used the same as an affidavit on the hearing, and he also put in evidence the record of the Superior Court of Guilford County, in the case entitled The People of the State of North Carolina by the Attorney-General ex rel. W. D. Trotter v. Samuel S. Mitchell; also copies of applications made by said Trotter for the issuance of letters of administration to him upon the estate of Charles E. Shober and Elijalx Doak; also tendered to the Clerk a bond as Public Administrator executed by said respondent with sureties.\nUpon hearing the case, the Clerk rendered judgment as follows:\n\u201c It is considered by the Court that the answer of the said Trotter is insufficient in law, and he having failed to renew his bond as Public Administrator on the 2d day of February, 1893, as required by law, and having failed to renew or tender a renewal of the same continuously ever since until after the service of the aforesaid notice, and having further shown his unfitness to continue in said office by his efforts to have estates committed to him without giving his bond, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said W. D. Trotter be and he is hereby removed from the said office.\u201d\nFrom this judgment the respondent appealed to the Judge of the Court who, at chambers in Oxford, decided and adjudged that there was no error in the ruling of the Court removing the respondent, and affirmed the order of removal, and from this judgment Trotter appealed.\nMr. L. M. Scott, for Trotter, appellant.\nMessrs. King & Dillard, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 215
}