Inscoe v. . Comrs. of Franklin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Inscoe v. . Comrs. of Franklin

182 S.E. 926, 208 N.C. 698, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 99

DecidedNovember 1, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.E. 926 (Inscoe v. . Comrs. of Franklin) 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

Inscoe v. . Comrs. of Franklin, 182 S.E. 926, 208 N.C. 698, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 99 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinions

Sci-iENCK, J.

This is an equitable action wherein the plaintiffs, upon allegations of unconstitutionality, enjoined the defendants from holding the election and putting into effect in Franklin County the other provisions of chapter 493 of the Public Laws of 1935, being an act to exempt certain counties from the provisions of Article 8, chapter 66 (entitled “Prohibition”), Yolume 3, of the Consolidated States, and to set up alcoholic control boards therein. This action is practically the same in purpose and in form as Newman et al. v. Watkins et al., Board of Commissioners, and Royster et al., Board of Elections of Vance County, ante, 675, and the reasons given and the authorities cited in the Vance County-case affirming the judgmént denying the injunctive relief prayed for in the complaint are reasons and authorities for reversing the judgment in this case granting such relief.

Reversed.

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

Sci-iENCK, J.

This is an equitable action wherein the plaintiffs, upon allegations of unconstitutionality, enjoined the defendants from holding the election and putting into effect in Franklin County the other provisions of chapter 493 of the Public Laws of 1935, being an act to exempt certain counties from the provisions of Article 8, chapter 66 (entitled “Prohibition”), Yolume 3, of the Consolidated States, and to set up alcoholic control boards therein. This action is practically the same in purpose and in form as Newman et al. v. Watkins et al., Board of Commissioners, and Royster et al., Board of Elections of Vance County, ante, 675, and the reasons given and the authorities cited in the Vance County-case affirming the judgmént denying the injunctive relief prayed for in the complaint are reasons and authorities for reversing the judgment in this case granting such relief.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E. 926, 208 N.C. 698, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inscoe-v-comrs-of-franklin-nc-1935.