Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Wilkinson

136 S.E. 722, 193 N.C. 830, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 470
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 23, 1927·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Prom an examination of the record we think the statute has been substantially' complied with. We see no reason why the legislative ratification is not substantially sufficient. Board of Education v. Comrs., 183 N. C., p. 302; Construction Co. v. Brockenbrough, 187 N. C., p. 77; Storm v. Wrightsville Beach, 189 N. C., at p. 683.

We can find no prejudicial or reversible error. The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Wilkinson, 136 S.E. 722, 193 N.C. 830, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 470 (N.C. 1927).

136 S.E. 722 (Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Wilkinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parsley v. County Court of Raleigh County
167 S.E. 738 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1933)