Myers v. . Hamilton

65 N.C. 567
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 567 (Myers v. . Hamilton) 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
Myers v. . Hamilton, 65 N.C. 567 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

Pearson, C. J.

It is enough to notice one of several fatal «objections, to the proceeding had before his Honor, Judge Watts. He had no jurisdiction to set aside an order made in the County of Wayne. Wood v. Morris, at this Term.

The reasoning in support of this conclusion, assumes that Judge Watts had jurisdiction in the two counties, for which he *568 had made an exchange with Judge Clarke, during the two-weeks of the Cornt of each County.

This is a question about which we are not at liberty to express an opinion; and it is referred to, merely to “ exclude a conclusion.” The Constitution, art. 4, sec. 14, authorizes Judges to exchange Districts; it does not follow as a matter of course that Judges are thereby authorized to exchange one or two counties of their Districts, on the idea that “ the greater includes the less;” for- there are many grave considerations-tending to a different conclusion, among others, the many difficult and perplexing questions, like the one now before us,, which a splitting up of districts may give rise to.

The other branch of this section has no bearing on the question ; by it, the Governor, for good reasons, “ may require any Judge to hold one or more specified terms, in lieu of the Judge, in whose District they are.” This has no reference to an exchange of one or more counties. There may be good reasons for requiring Judge A. to hold a special Term in a County of the District of Judge B., and no corresponding good reason for requiring Judge B. to hold a special Term in a County of the District of Judge A. So that provision does not bear upon our question.

There is error. Order appealed from reversed.

Per Curiam. Reversed.

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

Related

Newton v. State
21 Fla. 53 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1884)
State v. . Watson
75 N.C. 136 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
State v. . Smith
75 N.C. 306 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
Morris v. . Whitehead
65 N.C. 637 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-hamilton-nc-1871.