Collins v. Emerson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Collins v. Emerson

72 S.E.2d 685, 236 N.C. 297, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 541

DecidedOctober 8, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.E.2d 685 (Collins v. Emerson) 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

Collins v. Emerson, 72 S.E.2d 685, 236 N.C. 297, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 541 (N.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

DeNNY, J.

There is no exception to the findings of fact. The appellant contends, however, that from the facts found the court should have held, as a matter of law, that the election was invalid and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. The contention is without merit.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that when the Legislature has committed to a board the duty of submitting a proposition to the voters, in an area in which such board has jurisdiction, when such duty has been discharged and the result declared, such declaration is binding on everyone, so long as it stands unreversed by a proper judgment or decree in a direct proceeding brought for that purpose. In the meantime, the validity of the election may not be collaterally attacked. Smallwood v. New Bern, 90 N.C. 36; McDowell v. Construction Co., 96 N.C. 514, 2 S.E. 351; S. v. Emery, 98 N.C. 768, 3 S.E. 810; Rigsbee v. Durham, 98 N.C. 81, 3 S.E. 749; Bynum v. Commissioners, 101 N.C. 412, 8 S.E. 136; S. v. Cooper, 101 N.C. 684, 8 S.E. 134; Young v. Hendersonville, 129 N.C. 422, 40 S.E. 89; Gill v. Commissioners, 160 N.C. 176, 76 S.E. 203, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293; Forester v. North Wilkesboro, 206 N.C. 347, 174 S.E. 112; Barbee v. Commissioners, 210 N.C. 717, 188 S.E. 314.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

DeNNY, J.

There is no exception to the findings of fact. The appellant contends, however, that from the facts found the court should have held, as a matter of law, that the election was invalid and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. The contention is without merit.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that when the Legislature has committed to a board the duty of submitting a proposition to the voters, in an area in which such board has jurisdiction, when such duty has been discharged and the result declared, such declaration is binding on everyone, so long as it stands unreversed by a proper judgment or decree in a direct proceeding brought for that purpose. In the meantime, the validity of the election may not be collaterally attacked. Smallwood v. New Bern, 90 N.C. 36; McDowell v. Construction Co., 96 N.C. 514, 2 S.E. 351; S. v. Emery, 98 N.C. 768, 3 S.E. 810; Rigsbee v. Durham, 98 N.C. 81, 3 S.E. 749; Bynum v. Commissioners, 101 N.C. 412, 8 S.E. 136; S. v. Cooper, 101 N.C. 684, 8 S.E. 134; Young v. Hendersonville, 129 N.C. 422, 40 S.E. 89; Gill v. Commissioners, 160 N.C. 176, 76 S.E. 203, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293; Forester v. North Wilkesboro, 206 N.C. 347, 174 S.E. 112; Barbee v. Commissioners, 210 N.C. 717, 188 S.E. 314.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E.2d 685, 236 N.C. 297, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-emerson-nc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack