Haller v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Haller v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission

158 S.E. 383, 200 N.C. 733, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 427

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 383 (Haller v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission) 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

Haller v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission, 158 S.E. 383, 200 N.C. 733, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 427 (N.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*734 Adams, J.

The appellant contends that tbe award of the Industrial Commission should be set aside for two reasons: (1) The Workmen’s Compensation Act (P. L. 1929, ch. 120) is in conflict with the Constitution, Article YU, sec. 7, which provides that “no county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall contract any debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officer of the same except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein”; (2) the act deprives, the defendant of its right to a trial by jury, in contravention of Article I, section 19, which provides that “in all controversies at law respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.”

The first objection raises an academic question. There is nothing in the record showing that the board of commissioners of Mecklenburg County has attempted to levy a tax or to contract a debt, or to pledge its faith, or to loan its credit in breach of Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution. A question of this importance should be considered • and determined upon a full disclosure of all facts in a proceeding to which the board is made a party and given an opportunity to be heard.

The second ground of objection is without merit. The State has waived its sovereignty as to the claim of an injured employee, and neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions has the right to reject the provision of sections 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 of the Compensation Law, or any of its provisions relative to payment and acceptance of compensation. Section 8. Baker v. State, ante, 236; Moore v. State, ante, 300. Under this act trial by jury is not a constitutional right. McInnish v. Board of Education, 187 N. C., 494; Groves v. Ware, 182 N. C., 553; Commissioners v. George, ibid., 415; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S., 219, 61 Law Ed., 685. Judgment

Affirmed.

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

*734 Adams, J.

The appellant contends that tbe award of the Industrial Commission should be set aside for two reasons: (1) The Workmen’s Compensation Act (P. L. 1929, ch. 120) is in conflict with the Constitution, Article YU, sec. 7, which provides that “no county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall contract any debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officer of the same except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein”; (2) the act deprives, the defendant of its right to a trial by jury, in contravention of Article I, section 19, which provides that “in all controversies at law respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.”

The first objection raises an academic question. There is nothing in the record showing that the board of commissioners of Mecklenburg County has attempted to levy a tax or to contract a debt, or to pledge its faith, or to loan its credit in breach of Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution. A question of this importance should be considered • and determined upon a full disclosure of all facts in a proceeding to which the board is made a party and given an opportunity to be heard.

The second ground of objection is without merit. The State has waived its sovereignty as to the claim of an injured employee, and neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions has the right to reject the provision of sections 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 of the Compensation Law, or any of its provisions relative to payment and acceptance of compensation. Section 8. Baker v. State, ante, 236; Moore v. State, ante, 300. Under this act trial by jury is not a constitutional right. McInnish v. Board of Education, 187 N. C., 494; Groves v. Ware, 182 N. C., 553; Commissioners v. George, ibid., 415; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S., 219, 61 Law Ed., 685. Judgment

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 383, 200 N.C. 733, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haller-v-mecklenburg-highway-commission-nc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack