Chappell v. . Mowery

163 S.E. 565, 202 N.C. 584, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 161
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 13, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 S.E. 565 (Chappell v. . Mowery) 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
Chappell v. . Mowery, 163 S.E. 565, 202 N.C. 584, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 161 (N.C. 1932).

Opinion

Stacy, 0. J.

It is not conceded that the sign in question is an imitation of any official sign, but, however this may be, it is admittedly located on private property and not upon the right of way of any highway. Furthermore, the violation of the provisions of the statute is made a misdemeanor (section 58), and the remedy selected, injunction, would seem to be inappropriate on the showing made by the plaintiff. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v. Sanford, 200 N. C., 467, 157 S. E., 432; Turner v. New Bern, 187 N. C., 541, 122 S. E., 469; Thompson v. Lumberton, 182 N. C., 260, 108 S. E., 722.

The matter may have been coram non judice. The record is not altogether clear on this point. Green v. Stadiem, 197 N. C., 472, 149 S. E., 685; Reid v. Reid, 199 N. C., 740, 155 S. E., 719.

We have discovered no valid reason for a reversal of the judgment.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Jarrell v. . Snow
35 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 S.E. 565, 202 N.C. 584, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chappell-v-mowery-nc-1932.