Davenport v. Commissioners of Pitt County

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Davenport v. Commissioners of Pitt County

79 S.E. 423, 163 N.C. 147, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 138

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 1, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 423 (Davenport v. Commissioners of Pitt County) 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

Davenport v. Commissioners of Pitt County, 79 S.E. 423, 163 N.C. 147, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 138 (N.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*149 BeowN, J.

The object of this action is to enjoin tbe defendant from constructing a public bridge in lieu of a public ferry which, has been operated for many years across Tar River at Boyds Ferry, wholly within the county of Pitt.

We have examined the affidavits printed in the record, and can find no evidence of fraud or corruption, or of a gross abuse of discretion, and we fully concur in the finding of his Honor that the defendants have acted in good faith and within the discretion vested in them by law in regard to the wisdom and feasibility of erecting the bridge.

While the findings of fact of the judge of the Superior Court are not binding on us in injunction orders, we give them due weight and consideration, and we fully concur in those made in this case.

In adopting the resolution to build the bridge, the defendants acted well within their legal powers. In the absence of fraud, or oppression, it is a matter within their sound discretion, and will not be reviewed by us. Glenn v. Commissioners, 139 N. C., 412; Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 244; 7 Am. and Eng. Eney. of Law, 1009; 16 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 423.

In discussing the discretion of county commissioners in build-' ing bridges, in Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 250, Judge Pearson says: “In short, this Court is not capable of controlling the exercise of power on the part of the General Assembly, or of the county authorities, and it cannot assume to do so, without putting itself in antagonism as well to the General Assembly as to the county authorities, and erecting a despotism of five men, which is opposed to the fundamental principles of our government and the usage of all times past.”

The principle laid down in this often cited case has been consistently adhered to, and never departed from by this Court where the act is clearly within the power of the county authorities, and no fraud, corruption, or oppression is shown.

Affirmed and action dismissed.

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

*149 BeowN, J.

The object of this action is to enjoin tbe defendant from constructing a public bridge in lieu of a public ferry which, has been operated for many years across Tar River at Boyds Ferry, wholly within the county of Pitt.

We have examined the affidavits printed in the record, and can find no evidence of fraud or corruption, or of a gross abuse of discretion, and we fully concur in the finding of his Honor that the defendants have acted in good faith and within the discretion vested in them by law in regard to the wisdom and feasibility of erecting the bridge.

While the findings of fact of the judge of the Superior Court are not binding on us in injunction orders, we give them due weight and consideration, and we fully concur in those made in this case.

In adopting the resolution to build the bridge, the defendants acted well within their legal powers. In the absence of fraud, or oppression, it is a matter within their sound discretion, and will not be reviewed by us. Glenn v. Commissioners, 139 N. C., 412; Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 244; 7 Am. and Eng. Eney. of Law, 1009; 16 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 423.

In discussing the discretion of county commissioners in build-' ing bridges, in Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 250, Judge Pearson says: “In short, this Court is not capable of controlling the exercise of power on the part of the General Assembly, or of the county authorities, and it cannot assume to do so, without putting itself in antagonism as well to the General Assembly as to the county authorities, and erecting a despotism of five men, which is opposed to the fundamental principles of our government and the usage of all times past.”

The principle laid down in this often cited case has been consistently adhered to, and never departed from by this Court where the act is clearly within the power of the county authorities, and no fraud, corruption, or oppression is shown.

Affirmed and action dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 423, 163 N.C. 147, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-commissioners-of-pitt-county-nc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack