{ "id": 8627030, "name": "In the Matter of ADELE B. DUNN", "name_abbreviation": "In re Dunn", "decision_date": "1954-01-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "378", "last_page": "386", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "239 N.C. 378" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "189 S.E. 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624451 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 67", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.W. 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Mich. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1675417 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/174/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.C. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685420 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631202 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 N.C. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274202 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/35/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.C. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651702 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617763 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11301689 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 S.E. 2d 525", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596452 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619793 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0384-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 854, "char_count": 23486, "ocr_confidence": 0.484, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1307214722121655e-07, "percentile": 0.5757522928942962 }, "sha256": "71e62376c7a92f844f3867ea91509a73eeb5ae07f46276df8cfce49982cdaeab", "simhash": "1:fe2668f11a66b75f", "word_count": 4093 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:12.847603+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In the Matter of ADELE B. DUNN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Parker, J.\nThe appellee briefly states its position thus: (1) Our law does not require or contemplate the appointment of a guardian ad litem for an alleged incompetent in lunacy proceedings; (2) No one, and especially an outsider, should be allowed, however worthy his motives, to inject himself into a lunacy proceeding, and whether under the guise of a purported (ex parte) appointment as guardian ad litem, or otherwise, expect to collect money for his time and trouble out of the incompetent\u2019s estate.\nThe appellee on page 12 of its brief says : \u201cIn this connection, it should be noted that there is a statute permitting the appointment of a guardian or a guardian ad litem in a proper case upon a certificate from the superintendent of a hospital to the effect that a person in the hospital is \u2018of insane mind and memory.\u2019 G.S. 35-3.\u201d It seems that the appellee has completely overlooked the certificate of incompetency filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County by Dr. R. Charman Carroll. This appears to be very near, if not, an admission by the appellee that the appointment of the guardian ad litem in this proceeding was proper.\nThe appellee contends that G.S. 1-65, which provides that infants, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, etc., defend by a guardian ad litem applies only to actions and special proceedings, and an inquisition of lunacy under G.S. 35-2 is neither, quoting McIntosh N. 0. Prac. & Proc., Sec. 98, p. 96 : \u201cAn inquisition of lunacy would seem to be neither a civil action nor a special proceeding.\u201d Dr. McIntosh cites as his authority G.S. 2285, now G.S. 35-2, which is captioned \u201cInquisition of Lunacy; Appointment of Guardian.\u201d\nAn inquisition of lunacy as regards the person whose sanity is in question is a proceeding in personam; as it affects his property is a proceeding in rem. 44 C.J.S., Insane Persons, Sec. 8. Such an inquisition is certainly not a criminal action. G.S. 1-5. It is not a civil action as defined in G.S. 1-2. G.S. 1-3 states: \u201cEvery other remedy is a special proceeding.\u201d Certainly such an inquisition is of a civil nature, though it would seem it is not a special proceeding under G.S. 1-3. In re Cook, 218 N.C. 384, 11 S.E. 2d 142.\nThe Clerk of the Court has only such jurisdiction as is given him by statute. Beaufort County v. Bishop, 216 N.C. 211, 4 S.E. 2d 525; High v. Pearce, 220 N.C. 266, 17 S.E. 2d 108; Johnston County v. Ellis, 226 N.C. 268, 38 S.E. 2d 31. The appellee contends that as the inquisition in lunacy was not a civil action or special proceeding, the Clerk\u2019s appointment of the guardian ad litem for Adele B. Dunn in the proceeding was void.\nWe said in Smith v. Smith, 106 N.C. 498, 11 S.E. 188, \u201c. . . we think it well settled that where there has been no inquisition the lunatic may sue by next friend\u201d (citing in support decisions of tbe English Chancery Court). We think the reverse is equally true that where there has been no' inquisition the lunatic may defend by a guardian ad liiem.\nThe appellant contends that the case of Smith v. Smith, supra, refers only to actions and special proceedings.\nHowever, in deciding this matter, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the Clerk\u2019s order appointing Sam M. Millette, guardian ad litem for Adele B. Dunn, was void or not.\nIt is well settled law that an insane person is liable, under an obligation imposed by law, for necessaries furnished to him, provided there was an intent to charge therefor and credit was extended to him. 44 C.J.S., Insane Persons, Sec. .115. The obligation is to pay the reasonable value of the necessaries furnished. 28 Am. Jur., Insane and Other Incompetent Persons, Sec. 62. Ruffin, G. J., speaking for the Court in Richardson v. Strong, 35 N.C. 106, says: \u201cThere is, therefore, no absurdity in the case of lunatics more than in that of infants in implying a request to one rendering necessary services or supplying necessary articles, and implying also a promise to pay for them.\u201d As to necessaries furnished infants see Cole v. Wagner, 197 N.C. 692, 150 S.E. 339; Jordan v. Coffield, 70 N.C. 110.\nThis question is presented: Were the services rendered in this case for which the guardian ad litem in his motion seeks payment from the estate of Adele B. Dunn necessaries for Adele B. Dunn?\nAn inquisition in lunacy is for the benefit of the alleged insane person, and necessary for the protection of his person and property. Depriving a person of his liberty and his freedom to do with his property as he deems proper and putting him under the stigma of insanity or of being a person non compos mentis is a grave matter'. Every reasonable safeguard should be thrown around a person whose sanity is inquired into. An incompetent person is helpless and the law must think and act for him.\n\u201cIt is generally agreed that insanity proceedings are for the benefit of the alleged incompetent, and necessary to the protection of his person and property. Since legal services are required in the proper prosecution and defense of the proceedings the fees of counsel involved on both sides have been held recoverable from the incompetent\u2019s estate on the principle that an incompetent is liable for necessaries furnished him.\u201d Anno. 22 A.L.R. 2d, p. 1439, where the cases are cited. This statement has been quoted verbatim in Cumulative Supplement to Yol. 28 Am. Jur., p. 116.\n\u201cOn the theory that one alleged to be incompetent is entitled to a defense, as essential to the protection of his rights, it has been frequently held that an attorney who defends him is entitled to compensation even though the verdict is against his client.\u201d Anno. 22 A.L.R. 2d, p. 1447, citing cases from Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and England.\nIn Field v. Tarner (1855, Eng.), 3 Eq. Rep. 1012, 3 Week R 469, a solicitor was held entitled to recover from the estate of bis client, after the latter\u2019s death, the costs of an unsuccessful opposition to an inquiry into the client\u2019s state of mind. Tbe court said tbat an insane person was entitled to be represented in the investigation into bis sanity, and tbat no solicitor would represent bim if costs were refused.\nBuswell on Insanity, Sec. 284, is as follows: \u201cCosts and counsel fees reasonably incurred by either party in proceedings to establish tbe lunacy of a person are regarded, both at law and in equity, as necessary expenses incurred for tbe benefit of tbe lunatic, and are recoverable against bim or bis estate.\u201d\n\u201cAs a general rule, in some jurisdictions affirmed by express statutory provisions, where there is a finding of insanity, the costs of the inquiry are to be paid by the insane person or bis estate, it being considered tbat these are in the nature of necessary expenses incurred for the benefit of the person and for which be or bis estate is impliedly bound. . . . Tbe costs include any expenses reasonably and properly incurred. Commissioners\u2019 and attorneys\u2019 fees are proper items of costs; but the items of costs are restricted to those incurred in the lunacy proceeding, and therefore expenses incurred before or after the inquest generally are not allowable.\u201d 44 C.J.S., Insane Persons, Sec. 34, pp. 98-99. In addition to the authorities cited in support of the text, see Re Freshour, 174 Mich. 114, 140 N.W. 517, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 67, Ann. Cas. 1915A 726, where additional authorities are cited. Tbe authorities are not entirely agreed on this subject but it would seem tbat the better rule and the one apparently followed by a majority of the courts is as we have quoted it above.\nIt is the rule with us that when the court is called upon to make an allowance for attorneys, guardians ad litem, etc., such allowances should be fair and reasonable. Mood, Comr. of Banks, v. Cheshire, 211 N.C. 103, 189 S.E. 189.\nOn 24 March 1952 tbe Clerk of tbe Superior Court of Mecklenburg County acting under G.S. 122-79 committed Adele B. Dunn to Highland Hospital, Asheville, for observation and treatment, finding as a fact tbat her remaining at large was injurious to her, and disadvantageous, if not dangerous, to tbe community. That was done without any notice served upon her, or upon anyone in her behalf, and in her absence. On 13 May 1953 a petition in accord with G.S. 35-2 was filed with tbe Clerk by a brother of Adele B. Dunn requesting an inquisition of lunacy in respect to Adele B. Dunn and tbe appointment of a trustee for her property. On 15 May 1953 Grace Garrison, a close friend of Adele B. Dunn, acting for herself and other friends of Mrs. Dunn, employed Richard M. Welling of tbe Charlotte Bar to represent Mrs. Dunn in tbe sanity bearing, and Grace Garrison agreed to advance bim a fee of $500.00 and paid bim $200.00. Grace Garrison filed a written application with the Clerk requesting him to appoint a guardian ad litem in said proceeding for Mrs. Dunn to protect her interests. It would seem reasonable to infer that Welling drafted the petition for her. The Clerk appointed Millette as guardian ad litem, and he employed Welling as his attorney. It is apparent that Grace Garrison, Dr. W. D. Holbrook, Miss Neva Cox, Richard M. Welling and the guardian ad litem acted in good faith under the Clerk\u2019s appointment of Millette as guardian ad litem, particularly in the light of the affidavit of J. Spencer Bell. The guardian ad litem, his attorney Welling, Dr. W. D. Holbrook, Miss Neva Cox and Grace Garrison have performed services in the sanity proceeding, which resulted in the protection of the incompetent and the preservation of her estate valued in excess of $500,000.00, and certainly there was an intent on their part, with the exception of Grace Garrison, to charge for such services, for which they expected pay from the estate of Mrs. Dunn.\nWe think, under the facts of this proceeding, that the services rendered by Dr. W. D. Holbrook, Miss Neva Cox, Sam M. Millette, guardian ad litem, and Richard M. Welling, his attorney, are in the nature of necessary expenses incurred for the benefit of Adele B. Dunn, for which her estate is impliedly bound, and for such services incurred in the lunacy proceeding, and this includes reasonable expenses of Welling necessarily incurred and paid by him in the proceeding (which it is alleged amount to $32.58), the court should make such allowances to them as are fair and reasonable. When the court has fixed the allowance to Richard M. Welling, it shall deduct $200.00 therefrom, and pay it to Grace Garrison.\nThis proceeding is ordered remanded to the lower court, where judgment shall be entered in accordance with this opinion.\nError and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Parker, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Welling & Welling for Sam Millette, guardian ad litem of Adele B. Bunn, Appellant.", "Tilleti, Campbell, Craighill & Rendleman for Wachovia Banle <& Trust Company, Trustee of Adele B. Bunn, Appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of ADELE B. DUNN.\n(Filed 29 January, 1954.)\n1. Insane Persons\nAn inquisition of lunacy as regards the person whose sanity is in question is a proceeding in personam; as it affects his property it is a proceeding in rem. It is neither a criminal action, G.S. 1-5, nor a civil action as defined in G.S. 1-2, nor a special proceeding under G.S. 1-3, though it is of a civil nature.\n3.Clerks of Court \u00a7 3\u2014\nThe clerk of the Superior Court has only such jurisdiction as is given him by statute.\n3. Insane Persons \u00a7 15\u2014\nWhere there has been no inquisition of lunacy, a lunatic may defend by a guardian ad litem.\n4. Insane Persons \u00a7 9e\u2014\nAn insane person is liable, under an obligation imposed by law, for the reasonable value of the necessaries furnished him under an intent to charge therefor.\n5. Insane Persons \u00a7 1\u2014\nAn inquisition in lunacy is for the benefit of the alleged insane person, and necessary for the protection of his person and property, and every reasonable safeguard should be thrown around a person whose sanity is inquired into.\n6. Insane Persons \u00a7 4\u2014\nWhen the court is called upon to make an allowance for attorneys, guardians ad litem, etc., such allowances shall be fair and reasonable.\n7. Insane Persons \u00a7 9e \u2014 Allowances to attorney and guardian ad litem for services rendered in inquisition may be made as for necessaries.\nWhere a person is committed to a hospital for observation and treatment under G.S. 122-79 without notice being served upon her or upon anyone on her behalf, and in her absence, and thereafter a petition in accord with G.S. 35-2 is filed by a relative requesting an inquisition of lunacy and the appointment of a trustee, held, upon the rendition of a judgment in the inquisition of lunacy that the person to be committed back to the hospital for treatment, the court, upon proper petition, should make a reasonable allowance to the guardian ad litem appointed by the clerk therein, who acted in good faith in representing- her in the hearing, as well as allowance to the attorney employed by the guardian ad litem and to a psychiatrist and a stenographer for services performed in connection with the sanity proceeding, which allowance may be made as for necessaries without regard to whether the appointment of the guardian ad litem is void or not.\nAppeal by Sam M. Millette, guardian ad litem of Adele B. Dunn, an incompetent, from Sharp, Special J., August Special Civil Term 1953. MECKLENBURG.\nThe estate of Adele B. Dunn consists of real and personal property, and has a value in excess of $500,000.00. On 24 March 1953 Chase Brenizer, David S. Citron and P. M. King filed a verified petition under the provisions of G.S. 122-79 with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklen-burg County setting forth these facts: (1) Chase Brenizer is a brother of Mrs. Adele B. Dunn, and a resident of Mecklenburg County; (2) David S. Citron and P. M. King are duly licensed and practicing physicians in Charlotte; (3) Adele B. Dunn is now, and has been for many years, a resident of Mecklenburg County; (4) the undersigned have carefully examined Adele B. Dunn, and find that she is mentally ill, and believe her to be a fit subject for commitment to Highland Hospital, Ashe-ville, where her estate can pay for treatment, and that her detention and treatment there will he to her benefit; (5) that Drs. Citron and King have no connection with Highland Hospital.\nOn the same day the petition was filed in his office the \u25a0 Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County without the petition being served on Adele B. Dunn, or upon anyone for her, and in her absence, heard the petition. The clerk\u2019s order states that this matter coming on to be heard upon the petition, and after making a full and careful investigation of the facts, he, the Clerk, finds as a fact that Adele B. Dunn is a fit subject for commitment to a private hospital, and that her detention for observation and treatment will be to her benefit; that she is a tona fide citizen of Charlotte, and that her remaining at large is injurious to her, and disadvantageous, if not dangerous to the community. Thereupon, the Clerk approved the petition, which he called a certificate, and ordered Adele B. Dunn to be committed to, and detained in Highland Hospital, Asheville, for observation and treatment until further orders of this Court, or until released by the superintendent of the hospital.\nOn 30 April 1953 Dr. E. Charman Carroll made and sent to the Clerk of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County an affidavit stating that she is Medical Director of the Highland Hospital at Asheville, that Adele B. Dunn is confined in tbe hospital, that she is familiar with Adele B. Dunn\u2019s mental condition and that Adele B. Dunn is of insane mind and memory, and is unable to manage her affairs; and that this certificate of incompetency is issued pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 35-3.\nOn 13 May 1953, under the provisions of G.S. 35-2, Chase Brenizer filed a petition before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County stating that Adele B. Dunn under a former order of the Clerk had been committed to Highland Hospital for treatment, where she still is; that she is mentally disordered, and he prayed that an inquisition be had; that a notice to show cause be served upon her to show cause, if she could, as to why a trustee should not be appointed to manage her affairs; and that a jury be impaneled to inquire into the state of her mind, and that if the jury find that she is incompetent by reason of mental disorders to manage her affairs, a trustee be appointed to manage her affairs.\nOn 15 May 1953 a copy of the petition and a notice to show cause was served upon Adele B. Dunn in Highland Hospital by the Sheriff of Buncombe County.\nOn 15 May 1953 Grace Garrison, a close friend of Adele B. Dunn, and interested in her welfare, filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County a verified application for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Adele B. Dunn. This application sets forth in substance the contents of the petitions of 24 March 1953 and 13 May 1953 and the orders of the Clerk based on said petitions, and then states: (1) That on or about 27 March 1953, so Grace Garrison is informed and believes, A dele B. Dunn, against her will was physically removed from her home in Charlotte, and carried to Highland Hospital, where, since then, she has been held incommunicado; (2) that none of her friends have been permitted to see her; (3) that in one communication gotten out of the hospital by Adele B. Dunn, she has implored her friends to secure her release; (4) that it is vital to Adele B. Dunn that some suitable person be appointed by the court as guardian ad litem for her, to have her examined by competent psychiatrists, and to prepare her defense in her absence and physical detention under the previous ruling of this Court.\nPursuant to said application the Clerk made an order on 15 May 1953 stating that Adele B. Dunn is entitled to defend the charges made concerning her, and appointed Sam M. Millette, an attorney at law of Charlotte, her guardian ad litem. Millette employed Richard M. \"Welling of the Charlotte Bar to represent him as guardian ad litem.\nGrace Garrison, acting for herself and other friends of Adele B. Dunn, had theretofore employed Richard M. \"Welling to appear for Adele B. Dunn, and agreed to advance him a fee of $500.00, of which amount he has been paid $200.00 by Grace Garrison.\nIn tbe Record appears an affidavit of J. Spencer Bell, an attorney of Charlotte and past president of tbe North Carolina Bar Association. This affidavit may be summarized as follows: He makes this affidavit to be presented to tbe Clerk of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County in connection with a matter now pending before tbe Clerk in regard to tbe appointment of a trustee for Adele B. Dunn. That on numerous occasions various friends of Mrs. Dunn called on him in regard to having Mrs. Dunn\u2019s interest represented \u2014 tbe proceeding's under which she bad been committed to Highland Hospital having been ex parte without an opportunity to be beard, and tbe proceedings next instituted for tbe appointment of a trustee being ex parte. Mrs. Dunn was then under restraint in Highland Hospital. Tbe friends of Mrs. Dunn were of tbe opinion she should be released from tbe hospital. On some occasions prior to these requests be bad been requested by Mrs. Louise Brenizer, on behalf of her husband Chase Brenizer, to represent them in bringing a petition to have a trustee appointed for Mrs. Dunn. He refused to take any action because of bis personal acquaintance with Mrs. Dunn and, therefore, when called upon by Mrs. Dunn\u2019s friends to appear for Mrs. Dunn and resist such a petition, be felt that be should not accept employment on either side. He believes that in these proceedings against Mrs. Dunn, she was entitled to representation, as she was then under forceable restraint in a mental institution and that her friends bad a right on behalf of Mrs. Dunn to employ counsel to represent her interests, especially in view of tbe fact that her liberty was concerned. That be recommended to her friends that Richard M. Welling was a suitable and competent counsel to represent Mrs. Dunn at tbe suggestion of such friends. That these friends following his suggestion employed Welling. This affidavit is dated 12 June 1953.\nOn 23 May 1953 Millette and Welling went to Asheville, and saw Adele B. Dunn in tbe Highland Hospital, where she was held in physical restraint. She told them she wanted to do everything she could to protect herself and that she was in favor of Millette representing her as guardian ad litem and Welling as her attorney.\nOn 25 May 1953, Millette as guardian ad litem and Welling as her attorney, filed a motion with tbe Clerk stating that tbe inquisition was coming on for a bearing before him and a jury on 29 May 1953, and praying that an order issue directing that Highland Hospital have Adele B. Dunn present at tbe office of Dr. W. D. Holbrook, a psychiatrist, in Charlotte at 5 :00 p.m., 28 May 1953, so that Dr. Holbrook may make an examination of Adele B. Dunn, which is needed in her defense.\nOn tbe same day tbe Clerk made an order granting tbe prayer of tbe motion.\nOn 27 May 1953 tbe guardian ad litem filed an answer to tbe petition dated 13 May 1953.\n'On 29 May 1953 the jury summoned in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 35-2, after hearing the evidence found that Adele B. Dunn by reason of mental disorders was incompetent to manage her affairs. Whereupon on the same day the clerk entered judgment appointing the Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, trustee, to manage the affairs of Adele B. Dunn, and ordered that it be vested with all the powers of a guardian in administering the estate. The guardian ad litem,, Millette, and Welling were present at the hearing, and took part in it.\nOn 3 June 1953 the Clerk entered an order committing Adele B. Dunn back to Highland Hospital for treatment, until further order of the court. On the same day Pless, J., presiding over the courts of the Fourteenth District approved the proceedings.\nOn 3 June 1953 Millette, guardian ad litem, through Richard M. Welling, his attorney, filed a motion with the Clerk praying that an order be entered directing the trustee of Adele B. Dunn to pay the following amounts from her estate for services rendered to Adele B. Dunn, which amounts are alleged to be fair and reasonable and he recommends that they be paid: (1) $150.00 to Dr. W. D. Holbrook for examining Adele B. Dunn 28 May 1953; (2) $6.00 to Miss Neva Cox for taking the deposition of Chief Frank N. Littlejohn during the proceedings and supplying a copy to the guardian ad litem; (3) that Grace Garrison be paid $200.00 which she paid to Richard M. Welling. The guardian ad litem further prayed that a reasonable allowance be made to himself for his services as guardian ad litem, a reasonable fee be paid to his attorney Richard M. Welling, and that his attorney be reimbursed $32.58 for expenses incurred in representing him and paid by Welling.\nThe Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, as trustee, filed an answer resisting payment of any amount.\nOn 15 June 1953 the Clerk entered orders that the appointment of Sam M. Millette as guardian ad litem for Adele B. Dunn by himself was contrary to law, and denied in toto the motion to pay the aforesaid amounts. To these orders Millette, guardian ad litem, excepted and appealed to the Superior Court.\nOn 5 August 1953 Sharp, Special J., entered judgment affirming the Clerk\u2019s orders.\nTo the judgment entered Sam M. Millette, guardian ad litem for Adele B. Dunn, excepted and appealed. \u25a0\nWelling & Welling for Sam Millette, guardian ad litem of Adele B. Bunn, Appellant.\nTilleti, Campbell, Craighill & Rendleman for Wachovia Banle <& Trust Company, Trustee of Adele B. Bunn, Appellee." }, "file_name": "0378-01", "first_page_order": 422, "last_page_order": 430 }