Coleman v. . Coleman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Coleman v. . Coleman

62 S.E. 415, 148 N.C. 299, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 189

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 S.E. 415 (Coleman v. . Coleman) 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

Coleman v. . Coleman, 62 S.E. 415, 148 N.C. 299, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 189 (N.C. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

AValiceR., J.,

after stating the case: The action was properly brought before the Judge, at chambers, if the plaintiffs have any such cause of action as is stated in the complaint. The object of the'action is not to enforce the payment of a “money demand,” but to compel the. performance by the defendant, as Treasurer of the county, of a public duty. Because in the discharge of that duty he must deliver the fund to the plaintiffs docs not make it a money demand. If the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the “road fund,” as they allege, their action is not one to enforce the payment of money to themselves, which money they cordel recover by judgment and execution in an ordinary action for that purpose, but it is of a very different nature, and mandamus is the appropriate remedy. They would get -the money, it is true, but not because the defendant was indebted to them, but because the law required him to deliver it to them, and he had. failed and refused to discharge the duty imposed upon him. A¥e think this view of the law is sustained by several decisions of this Court in like cases. Martin v. Clark, 135 N. C., 178; Eubank v. Turner, 134 N. C., 80; Jones v. Commissioners, 135 N. C., 218; Audit Co. v. McKenzie, 61 S. E., 283. If there are issues of fact to be tried, or the case has been improperly brought before the Judge at chambers, it should, by order of the Judge, be transferred to the Superior Court for trial at term, and not dismissed. Eubank v. Turner, 134 N. C., 80; Jones v. Commissioners, 135 N. C., 218.

*302 Rut we do not think the plaintiffs have stated any cause of action in their complaint. The act of 1899, ch. 58, as amended by the act of 1905, ch. 161, does not authorize them to take possession of the fund, but the Treasurer is its rightful custodian. It is clear that the plaintiffs had no power under those acts to disburse the road fund. That duty is required to be performed by the County Treasurer, upon the certificate of the “County Road Superintendent” and the approval and order or orders of the plaintiffs. If any one is in law aggrieved by the failure or refusal of the Treasurer to discharge this duty, a mandamus will lie to compel its performance.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, but, as the motion was denied and its refusal was strictly within the discretion of the Judge, we cannot review the exercise of that discretion in this Court.

There was no error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the- action.

Affirmed.

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

AValiceR., J.,

after stating the case: The action was properly brought before the Judge, at chambers, if the plaintiffs have any such cause of action as is stated in the complaint. The object of the'action is not to enforce the payment of a “money demand,” but to compel the. performance by the defendant, as Treasurer of the county, of a public duty. Because in the discharge of that duty he must deliver the fund to the plaintiffs docs not make it a money demand. If the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the “road fund,” as they allege, their action is not one to enforce the payment of money to themselves, which money they cordel recover by judgment and execution in an ordinary action for that purpose, but it is of a very different nature, and mandamus is the appropriate remedy. They would get -the money, it is true, but not because the defendant was indebted to them, but because the law required him to deliver it to them, and he had. failed and refused to discharge the duty imposed upon him. A¥e think this view of the law is sustained by several decisions of this Court in like cases. Martin v. Clark, 135 N. C., 178; Eubank v. Turner, 134 N. C., 80; Jones v. Commissioners, 135 N. C., 218; Audit Co. v. McKenzie, 61 S. E., 283. If there are issues of fact to be tried, or the case has been improperly brought before the Judge at chambers, it should, by order of the Judge, be transferred to the Superior Court for trial at term, and not dismissed. Eubank v. Turner, 134 N. C., 80; Jones v. Commissioners, 135 N. C., 218.

*302 Rut we do not think the plaintiffs have stated any cause of action in their complaint. The act of 1899, ch. 58, as amended by the act of 1905, ch. 161, does not authorize them to take possession of the fund, but the Treasurer is its rightful custodian. It is clear that the plaintiffs had no power under those acts to disburse the road fund. That duty is required to be performed by the County Treasurer, upon the certificate of the “County Road Superintendent” and the approval and order or orders of the plaintiffs. If any one is in law aggrieved by the failure or refusal of the Treasurer to discharge this duty, a mandamus will lie to compel its performance.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, but, as the motion was denied and its refusal was strictly within the discretion of the Judge, we cannot review the exercise of that discretion in this Court.

There was no error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the- action.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 S.E. 415, 148 N.C. 299, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-coleman-nc-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack