Braddy v. City of Winston-Salem

159 S.E. 310, 201 N.C. 301, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 224

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Plaintiff assails tbe validity of tbe city ordinance which forbids tbe erection of a filling station on bis lot. While tbe matter was pending, and before bearing in tbe Superior Court, another ordinance was adopted which is also pleaded in bar of plaintiff’s right to tbe remedy sought. Without undertaking a minute analysis of these ordinances as applicable to plaintiff’s lot, which would serve no useful purpose as a precedent or otherwise, suffice it to say tbe application for writ of mandamus was properly denied for want of a clear showing of right on tbe part of tbe plaintiff to demand it. Hayes v. Benton, 193 N. C., 379, 137 S. E., 169. Mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right. Cody v. Barrett, 200 N. C., 43, 156 S. E., 146; Umstead v. Board of Elections, 192 N. C., 139, 134 S. E., 409; Person v. Doughton, 186 N. C., 723, 120 S. E., 481. In some respects, tbe case of Refining Co. v. McKernan, 179 N. C., 314, 102 S. E., 505, is not unlike tbe one at bar.

Affirmed.