In re Drainage of Ahoskie Creek

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In re Drainage of Ahoskie Creek

134 S.E.2d 642, 261 N.C. 407, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 465

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 4, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 S.E.2d 642 (In re Drainage of Ahoskie Creek) 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

In re Drainage of Ahoskie Creek, 134 S.E.2d 642, 261 N.C. 407, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 465 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The drainage district bases its asserted right to appeal from the clerk’s order of August 24, 1961, solely on the final paragraph of the statute codified (see 1963 Cumulative Supplement, also S.L. 1959, ch. 597) as G.S. 156-70.1, viz.: “If the board of viewers shall not approve said claim, the clerk of the superior court shall consider the claim and determine what in his opinion is a fair value and the amount so determined shall be shown in the said final report as amended and confirm-edj by said adjudication. If landowner does not accept the value fixed by the clerk of the superior court, appeal may be had upon the question of value, to the superior court and such appeal shall follow the procedure provided in G.S. 156-75.” The appeal referred to is by a landowner who “does not accept the value fixed by the clerk of the superior court.” No provision is made for an appeal by the drainage district. It is not a landowner within the meaning of the quoted statutory provision. Since the drainage district had no right of appeal from the clerk’s order of August 24, 1961, we do not consider whether its purported appeal complied with the procedural requirements of G.S. 156-75.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The drainage district bases its asserted right to appeal from the clerk’s order of August 24, 1961, solely on the final paragraph of the statute codified (see 1963 Cumulative Supplement, also S.L. 1959, ch. 597) as G.S. 156-70.1, viz.: “If the board of viewers shall not approve said claim, the clerk of the superior court shall consider the claim and determine what in his opinion is a fair value and the amount so determined shall be shown in the said final report as amended and confirm-edj by said adjudication. If landowner does not accept the value fixed by the clerk of the superior court, appeal may be had upon the question of value, to the superior court and such appeal shall follow the procedure provided in G.S. 156-75.” The appeal referred to is by a landowner who “does not accept the value fixed by the clerk of the superior court.” No provision is made for an appeal by the drainage district. It is not a landowner within the meaning of the quoted statutory provision. Since the drainage district had no right of appeal from the clerk’s order of August 24, 1961, we do not consider whether its purported appeal complied with the procedural requirements of G.S. 156-75.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E.2d 642, 261 N.C. 407, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-drainage-of-ahoskie-creek-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack