Board of Commissioners v. Security Trust Co.

80 S.E. 230, 164 N.C. 301, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 50
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 10, 1913·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hoke, J.

Tbe judgment of bis Honor is fully approved. It is well understood tbat a correct notice of tbe polling places is considered of tbe substance, and must be properly given; but tbe notice in tbis instance fully meets tbe requirements of tbe law. These voting precincts must be formally established, and can be moved or changed only after due inquiry and notice fully given. Revisal, see. 4305. They are known to tbe entire electorate of tbe county, and when tbe voters were publicly and formally notified tbat tbe election would be held on tbe specified date, “at tbe various voting precincts of tbe county as they are now established,” tbe notice conveyed as full and ample information as could well be given, and on tbe facts in evidence we think bis Honor was fully justified in declaring tbat “tbe polling places were fixed and permanent and bad been used as such in previous elections, and all electors knew or were presumed to know tbe polling' place in tbe precinct where be resided and where be was entitled to vote,” a position which finds further support in tbe full expression bad from tbe voters on tbe question submitted.

Tbe judgment of tbe lower court approving tbe validity of tbe bonds is affirmed. Tbis will be certified, tbat tbe contract between tbe parties may be properly enforced.

Affirmed.

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

Board of Commissioners v. Security Trust Co., 80 S.E. 230, 164 N.C. 301, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 50 (N.C. 1913).

80 S.E. 230 (Board of Commissioners v. Security Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Road Commissioners v. Bank of Ashe
107 S.E. 245 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Weisgerber v. Nez Perce County
197 P. 562 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1921)