ELIZA F. JONES vs. JOHN JONES.
,,:Wheki’ ¡¡lie Superior Court, upoii ’'the facts submitted to and deterrüined by them,'refused a motion to dismiss 'a guardian ; Hold, that an appeáf could not be taken from their decision.
Thp case of Bagley v Wood, ante-f. cited andappróved.
Appeal from the Superior’ Court of Law of Jones County, ‘■■at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Caedweel pre- - siding.
Motion-to-remove the defendant from the guardianship “ of the infant children of Jonas Jones, dec’d. The plaintiff is the mother of the wards, and the defendant their grand-father. In the County Court, the judgment was, that the ‘ defendant be- removed, and the plaintiff be appointed in his .place. From this 'decision, 'the defendant appealed to the •Superior Court, where a motion was made by the Counsel -of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal, on the ground, that -the defendant had no right to appeal. This was refused, •and the plaintiff then insisted tháfthe order of the County Court, -removing the-defendant from his guardianship,’ought ■•to be confirmed, unless the defendant showed that there was no error in law or in fact in said.order. This was defied by the Court, upon the ground that the trial in that ■Court was cie novo. A motion was then submitted by the ■defendant to dismiss the proceeding for error in the rule -and notice. This was overruled by the Court. The case ■states, that “ then the Court proceeded to hear the whole matter, upon evidence and witnesses introduced in Court-; and, after hearing the whole matter, the Court reversed the judgment of the County Court, removing the defendant from the guardianship of the infant children, and declaring that *99lie was the proper,person ta.be theirguardian,- and directed » a-procedendo to be issued to the County Court. Where-.. upon, the plaintiff appealed‘to this Court.
J. Id. Bryan, for the plaintiff..
W. H. Haywood and J W. Bryan, for the defendant..
Nash, J.
For the reasons set . forth in the case of Bagley v Wood, decided at-this Term, without examining into , the testimony,-upon which the Superior Court acted, which, we have no power to do, the orders of said Court are affirm - ed, upon the ground that we have no power to revise a discretionary judgment of the Superior.Court,-.except-for error ■ ini law. Here, none isy.shown.,
Per Curjam. Orders affirmed.
(Note. — The same point decided at this Term in,the. case.of Leavitt v Etheridge, from,Currituck.)