Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-10
] COURT O. Il. |! DECISIONS.
Rotes q Cases il;' Recently Decided,
Which are Of Of Interest s q,
Our People.
5DlGESTED BY W.{B. MARTIN. 81
1ESeluslvely for, virssnian- Pllot)
HoLLoA1AN Y. HoLLoh1A.N.

~
HoLLoAIAN v. HoLLoNIAN.
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
i October 10, 1899.
& asD1SSENT FROM AN ALLOTMENT
OF; A YEARS. .ALLOWANCE FOR
Et:5 AN INFANT WIDOW MADE BY
NJ HER Next FRIEND, is suFFI-
IS: cIENT. WHEN SHE HAS No
GUARDIAN.
:3Sij WIDOW Is NOT ENTITLED TO,
5sA ANY ALLOWANCE FOR STEP
81 CHILDREN RESIDING WITH HER
HUSBAND AT Els DEATH, IE.
UNDER HIS WILL. THEY ARE
TRANSFERRED no A GUARDIAN
AND ToLIVE WITH HIM. AND BE
SUPPORTED OUT OF ESTATE
LEFT TO THEM.
rms was an application for a widow
LOT u years allowance. From judg-
pealed. = -
!; the court says:
me first exception is that the widow.
VINO is an infant, did not enter her dis
SEM py her guardian, as provided in
Code, section 210S, but by next friend.
una mat she is represented in this
proceeding and has appealed by such
next friend. The next friend was duly
APPOINTED In the mode prescribed by
RUE 10 OF the Superior Court. The OBJ
3ection Is entirely technical. and 5f If
mad any force. we would allow the
motion to make the guardian party in
TINS Court. In the interest of justice.
under Code. section 965 But the OK
Septlon is altogether without merit, for
Code, section $50. expressly provides
s that III actions and special proceed
inss, which embrace all civil rene
u'es-whenevcr any infant or other per-
son under disability shall be without
guardian, then such infant etc, "maY.
appenr by next friend The rule nee
essarily CONCENTRATES the appointment
OF next friend in some cases. and II Is
only when there Is no guardian that
they arc needed.
The second exception Is that the Wild
ow was allowed. in addition to the 5000
ior herself, 500 each for her two step
children. They were children of tho
husband by former marriage, and
were living With him at his death: but
py virtue OF his will they were imme-
diately transferred to tho custody Of
MS brother, who was appointed their
guardian and executor Of the will. The
VIII gives him "cntire charge and con
ttoi OF tnciri persons and property"
una he is directed t'to take them to live
with him. and to care forland educate
them out of the profits or the estate"
which is left entirely to the two chill
drenlsnhtect to the widows right OF
dover. The executor Immediately tooW
the children home to live with him.
leaving them only n, few days with the
WIDOW, at her request as her guests
In no sense were they members OF
fl i1t,tt
death OF the husband. Section 211S al
lows $500 for the widow and $500 In
addition thereto for every member Of
the family besides the widow" Sec
ton 2119 restricts the family" to chill
dren of the deceased or of the widow
or to whom either stood in loco .paren-
tbs. under is years OF age, ''who were
residing With the deceased at his
death" The object of this last clause
was TO exclude from the bounty chill
dren who might come in after such
death to make themselves members OF
the family" and evidently was not
meant to embrace those who, as in the
present instance. cease, as n conse-
qucnce OF the death, to be members
of the family and chargeable as such
to the widow; for Code, section PIG
says mat the years provisions is "for
the support Of herself and famIIy.n ,Tha
$500 is for her support. The additional
500 for each child under Is years of
age is not for her benefit but to ena-
BILE her to provide for such children. II
any there be, who are members of the
family. 1t would be Sticking in the
bark" Indeed, to take 5000, which must
come out of the property placed in the
hands of the guardian for the support
vi these very children, and give it to
the stepmother, who by the will is de-
..Drivcd Of their custody and relieved
of all expense Of their support. Here
the custody of the children being given
to the guardian by the will, and he
having taken them to his home at
once. neither by the letter nor the
spirit of the statute is the widow en-
titled to an allowance for them. SO
much of the Judgment is allows the
plaintiff 5000 on account of the two
children Is reversed
GALLEY v. Asso. OF MASTER
PLUMBERS.