Burbank v. . Williams

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Burbank v. . Williams

61 N.C. 37

DecidedJune 5, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.C. 37 (Burbank v. . Williams) 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

Burbank v. . Williams, 61 N.C. 37 (N.C. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

*38 Pearson, O. J.

This case was brought up by the plaintiff, tor the purpose of obtaining the opinion of this court on the question as to the constitutionality of the act of the General Assembly, entitled “ An act to change the jurisdiction of the courts, and the rules of pleading therein,” ratified 10th March, 1866.

The statute in question is repealed by an ordinance of the Convention at its last session, upon the same subject, and there is nothing involved in the case, as it now stands, except the costs of the appeal. Under these circumstances the court does not feel itself called upon to decide on the constitutionality of tne statute, simply to dispose of a question of costs; especially as the defendant has already obtained the delay in reference to the time of pleading, which was the matter of contention.

Without entering into the question, we affirm the judgment below.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

*38 Pearson, O. J.

This case was brought up by the plaintiff, tor the purpose of obtaining the opinion of this court on the question as to the constitutionality of the act of the General Assembly, entitled “ An act to change the jurisdiction of the courts, and the rules of pleading therein,” ratified 10th March, 1866.

The statute in question is repealed by an ordinance of the Convention at its last session, upon the same subject, and there is nothing involved in the case, as it now stands, except the costs of the appeal. Under these circumstances the court does not feel itself called upon to decide on the constitutionality of tne statute, simply to dispose of a question of costs; especially as the defendant has already obtained the delay in reference to the time of pleading, which was the matter of contention.

Without entering into the question, we affirm the judgment below.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.C. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burbank-v-williams-nc-1866.