Austin v. Helms

65 N.C. 560
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 15, 1871·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Dick, J.

We have considered ¡the various exceptions filed by the defendants, and concur in the opinion of his Honor.

The 6th exception was the only one insisted upon hy the counsel in this Court. Under the Act of 1868 — ’69, a person injured by the erection of a public mill, is entitled to have his damages assessed by three Commissioners, appointed in the manner prescribed in said Act.

There is no provision in the Act requiring all the Commissioners to concur in the report; and the action of a majority is sufficient, as in other cases, where three or more public officers, or other persons are entrusted with the exercise of joint authority. Rev. Code, chap. 102, sec. 2.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Austin v. Helms, 65 N.C. 560 (N.C. 1871).

65 N.C. 560 (Austin v. Helms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ballard v. City of Charlotte
70 S.E.2d 575 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
First National Bank v. Town of Mount Tabor
52 Vt. 87 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1879)