Case ID: nc_3/html/0237-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Hally Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones vs. Drake.
    
    ¡THE defendant was an infant, and was served with the bill ia 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 m the bill.
    Í? eonfra
    The practice is to serve the bill on the defendant, and then appoint him a guardian to answer that bill. There is sao necessity to serve the guardian with a new bill. And the counsel cited 1 Harrison, 474, and Kay vs. Black’s heirs, in this court.
   Hally Judge,

doubted ; but applying ta Baker to know how the practice was, and he saying it was to serve the bill on the infant ciuly 5 his honor then held the guardian bound to answer, with» out being served with the bill, but gave time to answer.