-
We think that the order of removal on the ground that the relator had failed to renew his bond was, under the circumstances *Page 132 of this case, not only irregular, but void. The relator's office of public administrator was a property right, and it is well settled that he cannot be deprived thereof but by the law of the land. In Vann v. Pipkin,
77 N.C. 408 , it was held that although the statute declared that the failure of a sheriff to renew his bond and produce receipts, etc., should create a vacancy, such vacancy was not in fact created until so declared by a competent tribunal, and that no such vacancy "can be declared until the alleged delinquent shall have had due notice and a day in court if in reach of its process." See also Hoke v. Henderson,15 N.C. 1 . The judgment of the clerk, without any pretense of notice, was not only irregular, but absolutely void. Jennings v. Stafford,23 N.C. 404 . There was, therefore, no error in the ruling of the court. The judgment of the court, as we construe it, did not deprive the clerk of the right to require a renewal of the bond, or to remove the relator for any other proper cause, and the objection upon this ground is untenable.Affirmed.
Cited: Wilson v. Jordan,
124 N.C. 709 ; Greene v. Owen,125 N.C. 215 .
Document Info
Citation Numbers: 20 S.E. 386, 115 N.C. 190
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 9/5/1894
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023