Pegram v. Commissioners of Cleaveland County

65 N.C. 114
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 114 (Pegram v. Commissioners of Cleaveland County) 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
Pegram v. Commissioners of Cleaveland County, 65 N.C. 114 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

Dick, J.

This case was before the Court at last Term, (61 N. C. 557,) and “ it was declared to be the opinion of this Court, that the writ of mandamms should be issued as prayed for.”

His Honor in the Court below, declined to order the writ to be issued, because the individuals who comprised the Board of Commissioners, had been changed, and they “ had not had a day in Court.”

The County of Cleaveland is a municipal corporation, and “its power can only be exercised by the Board of Commissioners,” &c. “All acts or proceedings by or against a Oounty in its corporate capacity, shall be in the name of the Board of Commissioners. (Acts 1868, ch. 20.) As all the corporate functions of a county are thus to be exercised, the Board of Commissioners must necessarily have a perpetual existence, continued by members who succeed each other, and the body remains the same notwithstanding a change in the individuals who compose it.

The County is a public corporation, and has certain public duties to perform, and according to the provision of the statute above referred to, the writ of mandamus must be directed to the Board of Commissioners, who exercise the corporate powers, (Tapping on Man. 317,) and the individuals *116 who compose the Board at the time of service, must obey the writ.

There was error. Let this be certified.

Pee, Oueiam. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Boise-Kuna Irrigation District v. Hartson
285 P. 456 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1929)
Knights v. Treasurer & Receiver General
236 Mass. 336 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
State ex rel. Lashly v. Wurdeman
166 S.W. 348 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Nance v. People ex rel. Sheedy
25 Colo. 252 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1898)
State ex rel. Bauman v. Judge of Civil District Court
38 La. Ann. 43 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1886)
State ex rel. School Board v. Guthrie
17 Neb. 113 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1885)
Wren v. City of Indianapolis
96 Ind. 206 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
State ex rel. Sloan v. Warner
3 Colo. L. Rep. 145 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Commissioners v. Sellew
99 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Benjamin Askew v. . James M. Pollack
66 N.C. 49 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pegram-v-commissioners-of-cleaveland-county-nc-1871.