Benjamin Askew v. . James M. Pollack

66 N.C. 49
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 N.C. 49 (Benjamin Askew v. . James M. Pollack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benjamin Askew v. . James M. Pollack, 66 N.C. 49 (N.C. 1872).

Opinion

Dick, J.

The plaintiff alleges that lie is a creditor of the county of Jones, and he seeks to enforce the payment of his claim by a writ of -mandamus.

The proceedings were instituted against certain individuals, styling themselves Commissioners of Jones county. The statute expressly requires, “ All acts or proceedings by or against a county in its corporate capacity should be in the name of tbo board of' commissioners.” Commissioners of Cleaveland vs. Pegram, 65, N. C., 114.

The order to show cause, which is in tbe nature of tbe alternative writ of mandamus, ought not to have been, directed to the individuals composing the Board, as it is only in case of disobedience that they are liable to be proceeded against individually.

The defennants moved to quash the proceedings as they are not in accordance with tbe requirements of the statute.

This motion was in the nature of a ’special demurrer, and might to have been allowed, unless there was a motion to *51 amend. It is all important that the forms required by law shall be complied with, so that legal proceedings may be conducted with regularity, precision and certainty. No motion for an amendment was made, and ilia Honor refused to quash the irregular proceedings. In this there was error. As this erroneous ruling was the ground for the appeal for the defendants, an amendment cannot, be allowed in this Court, which would defeat the cause ot appeal. We must decide this case as His Honor ought to have done upon the proceedings as they appeared before him. The proceedings must bo quashed, for the cause assigned by defendants.

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

Related

Jenkins Bros. Shoe Co. v. Travis
84 S.E. 1036 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 N.C. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-askew-v-james-m-pollack-nc-1872.