Eastman v. Commissioners of Burke County

26 S.E. 39, 119 N.C. 505
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1896·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

EaiRCloth, C. J. :

This is an action, for possession of a part of the court-house square- in Burke county. The plaintiff made a motion to have the cause removed to another county, on the ground that the subject of the action is county property, and that every juror in the county was interested as a taxpayer.

The same principle was considered in Johnson v. Rankin, 70 N. C., 550, and the motion was overruled. No judge or juror can serve in an action in which lie is interested, but the interest ofa man because of his residence in a county or town is too remote aud indirect. Such a rule would disqualify every judge or justice of the peace to try an action in the county or town in which he resided.

Affirmed.

Furches, J., having been of counsel, did not sit on the hearing of this case.

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

Eastman v. Commissioners of Burke County, 26 S.E. 39, 119 N.C. 505 (N.C. 1896).

26 S.E. 39 (Eastman v. Commissioners of Burke County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Jackson v. McFadden
177 So. 755 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1937)
Maddex v. Columber
151 N.E. 56 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1926)
White v. . Lane
68 S.E. 895 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
City of Detroit v. Detroit Railway
95 N.W. 992 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)