Bolick v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bolick v. City of Charlotte

132 S.E. 660, 191 N.C. 677, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 151

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 28, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 S.E. 660 (Bolick v. City of Charlotte) 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

Bolick v. City of Charlotte, 132 S.E. 660, 191 N.C. 677, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 151 (N.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, by its demurrer to tbe complaint, on tbe ground that tbe facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant, relies upon tbe provisions of section 15, cb. 251, Private Laws 1911, entitled, “An act to amend tbe charter of tbe city of Charlotte.” There is no reference in tbe complaint to said private act of tbe General Assembly, nor is there an allegation therein that defendant is a municipal corporation by virtue of said private act. It is well settled that courts do not take judicial notice of private acts of tbe General Assembly. Parties to an action who rely upon such acts must plead and prove them. Reid v. R. R., 162 N. C., 355; Corporation Commission v. R. R., 127 N. C., 283; C. S., 541. Defendant cannot avail itself of the provisions of its charter, which is a private act of tbe General Assembly, by a demurrer to tbe complaint, in which said private act is neither alleged nor specifically referred to. Such provisions, if relied upon to defeat plaintiff in bis action, must be set up in tbe answer as a defense. Tbe demurrer of defendant is a “speaking demurrer”; it was properly overruled. Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N. C., 257; Cherry v. R. R., 185 N. C., 90; Trust Co. v. Wilson, 182 N. C., 166; Godwin v. Gardner, 182 N. C., 97; Kendall v. Highway Commission, 165 N. C., 600; Wood v. Kincaid, 144 N. C., 393; Von Glahn v. DeRossett, 76 N. C., 292.

"We have not considered tbe interesting questions, discussed in tbe briefs filed in this Court, involving tbe sufficiency of tbe notices given, as shown by tbe exhibits attached to tbe complaint. Whether such exhibits constitute a substantial compliance with tbe requirements of tbe statute cannot now be determined. It is not alleged that these notices were given as required by defendant’s charter. We bold only that tbe demurrer was properly overruled, for tbe reasons herein stated. Tbe judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, by its demurrer to tbe complaint, on tbe ground that tbe facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant, relies upon tbe provisions of section 15, cb. 251, Private Laws 1911, entitled, “An act to amend tbe charter of tbe city of Charlotte.” There is no reference in tbe complaint to said private act of tbe General Assembly, nor is there an allegation therein that defendant is a municipal corporation by virtue of said private act. It is well settled that courts do not take judicial notice of private acts of tbe General Assembly. Parties to an action who rely upon such acts must plead and prove them. Reid v. R. R., 162 N. C., 355; Corporation Commission v. R. R., 127 N. C., 283; C. S., 541. Defendant cannot avail itself of the provisions of its charter, which is a private act of tbe General Assembly, by a demurrer to tbe complaint, in which said private act is neither alleged nor specifically referred to. Such provisions, if relied upon to defeat plaintiff in bis action, must be set up in tbe answer as a defense. Tbe demurrer of defendant is a “speaking demurrer”; it was properly overruled. Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N. C., 257; Cherry v. R. R., 185 N. C., 90; Trust Co. v. Wilson, 182 N. C., 166; Godwin v. Gardner, 182 N. C., 97; Kendall v. Highway Commission, 165 N. C., 600; Wood v. Kincaid, 144 N. C., 393; Von Glahn v. DeRossett, 76 N. C., 292.

"We have not considered tbe interesting questions, discussed in tbe briefs filed in this Court, involving tbe sufficiency of tbe notices given, as shown by tbe exhibits attached to tbe complaint. Whether such exhibits constitute a substantial compliance with tbe requirements of tbe statute cannot now be determined. It is not alleged that these notices were given as required by defendant’s charter. We bold only that tbe demurrer was properly overruled, for tbe reasons herein stated. Tbe judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 660, 191 N.C. 677, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolick-v-city-of-charlotte-nc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack