Rogers v. . McGowan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Rogers v. . McGowan

68 N.C. 520

DecidedJanuary 5, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 68 N.C. 520 (Rogers v. . McGowan) 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

Rogers v. . McGowan, 68 N.C. 520 (N.C. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

On 27 March, 1872, the relator was appointed Keeper of the Capitol by the Governor, and demanded the office of the defendant who was performing the duties thereof under an appointment of the General Assembly. The Act entitled "An Act in relation to the election of Keeper of the Capitol," under which the defendant claimed the office, was ratified 2 February, 1872. The question as to the constitutionality of this Act being argued before his Honor in the Court below, he gave judgment in favor of the relator for the same reasons that are fully set out in the cases referred to in the opinion of the Court. (521) From this judgment defendant appealed. The questions in this case are substantially the same *Page 360 as in Nichols v. McKee, ante, 429, and Welker v. Bledsoe, ante, 457, and are governed by the same principles and for the same reasons.

There will be judgment that the defendant be excluded from said office, and that the plaintiff recover his costs.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cited: Welker v. Bledsoe, ante, 465; Brown v. Turner, 70 N.C. 107.

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

On 27 March, 1872, the relator was appointed Keeper of the Capitol by the Governor, and demanded the office of the defendant who was performing the duties thereof under an appointment of the General Assembly. The Act entitled "An Act in relation to the election of Keeper of the Capitol," under which the defendant claimed the office, was ratified 2 February, 1872. The question as to the constitutionality of this Act being argued before his Honor in the Court below, he gave judgment in favor of the relator for the same reasons that are fully set out in the cases referred to in the opinion of the Court. (521) From this judgment defendant appealed. The questions in this case are substantially the same *Page 360 as in Nichols v. McKee, ante, 429, and Welker v. Bledsoe, ante, 457, and are governed by the same principles and for the same reasons.

There will be judgment that the defendant be excluded from said office, and that the plaintiff recover his costs.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cited: Welker v. Bledsoe, ante, 465; Brown v. Turner, 70 N.C. 107.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 N.C. 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-mcgowan-nc-1873.