Scott v. . Smith

28 S.E. 64, 121 N.C. 94
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 28 S.E. 64 (Scott v. . Smith) 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
Scott v. . Smith, 28 S.E. 64, 121 N.C. 94 (N.C. 1897).

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.:

The commissioners of the town of Pikeville passed an ordinance declaring it unlawful and *95 punishable by fine to play baseball, foot-ball &c., within the corporate limits of the town without permission of the Mayor, who is one of the defendants, and the plaintiff brings this action to restrain the threatened enforcement -of the ordinance by the defendant, Mayor, on the ground that the ordinance is void and in violation of the constitution, in that it deprives the citizens of their “liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor and the pursuit of happiness.”

If the ordinance is lawful and valid, as insisted by the defendants, the plaintiff has no cause of complaint and can maintain no form of civil action. If it is void, as insisted by the plaintiff, then he has misconceived his remedy, for a court of equity will not interpose when the plaintiff has a remedy at law by civil action for damages, in which, and in a criminal action also, the validity of the ordinance would be presented. At present we do not express anjr opinion upon that question. Cohen v. Commissioners of Goldsboro, 77 N. C., 2; Wardens v. Washington, 109 N. C., 21. The injunction is dissolved and the action dismissed.

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

Related

Roller v. Allen
96 S.E.2d 851 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Jarrell v. . Snow
35 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v. Town of Sanford
157 S.E. 432 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
City of Elizabeth City v. Aydlett
152 S.E. 681 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Barton v. . Grist
136 S.E. 344 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Moore v. . Bell
131 S.E. 724 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Dixie Poster Advertising Co. v. City of Asheville
128 S.E. 149 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Turner v. City of New Bern
187 N.C. 541 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Turner v. . New Bern
122 S.E. 469 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Thompson v. Town of Lumberton
108 S.E. 722 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Kelly v. Conner
122 Tenn. 339 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1909)
State v. . R. R.
59 S.E. 570 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
State v. Southern Railway Co.
145 N.C. 495 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Hargett v. Bell.
46 S.E. 749 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Paul v. . Washington
47 S.E. 793 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Vickers v. Durham.
44 S.E. 685 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 S.E. 64, 121 N.C. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-smith-nc-1897.