Barbour ex rel. Richmond County v. Goodman

101 S.E.2d 696, 247 N.C. 655, 1958 N.C. LEXIS 297
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 31, 1958·Published

Opinion

Johnson, J.

A careful study of the plaintiff’s exceptions and supporting arguments discloses neither prejudicial nor reversible error. For the reasons stated in the foregoing conclusions of Judge Preyer, who heard the case below, we think the judgment should be upheld: 20 C.J.S., Counties, Sec. 101 p. 898, note 83; 14 Am. Jur., Counties, Sec. 32. See also Suttle v. Doggett, 87 N.C. 203. As to the services performed by the County Auditor [661] and Tax Supervisor, it is manifest that she was acting merely as agent of the defendant Tax Collector.

Affirmed.

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

Barbour ex rel. Richmond County v. Goodman, 101 S.E.2d 696, 247 N.C. 655, 1958 N.C. LEXIS 297 (N.C. 1958).

101 S.E.2d 696 (Barbour ex rel. Richmond County v. Goodman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Suttle v. . Doggett
87 N.C. 203 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1882)