Smith v. Hauser

138 S.E.2d 505, 262 N.C. 735, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 729
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 4, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 505 (Smith v. Hauser) 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
Smith v. Hauser, 138 S.E.2d 505, 262 N.C. 735, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 729 (N.C. 1964).

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

The cause, which was before Judge Brock for final hearing, was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts.

If, as plaintiff asserts, the statutory provisions relied on by the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County as authority for their resolution of April, 1964, are unconstitutional and therefore void, plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law in that he has a complete defense to a criminal prosecution for violation of said resolution. In our view, the stipulated facts fail to show circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable (injunctive) relief; and the general rule, as stated in Walker v. Charlotte, ante, 697, . S.E. 2d ., and cases cited, applies. Hence, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

High Point Surplus Company v. Pleasants
142 S.E.2d 697 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
High Point Surplus Co. v. Pleasants
139 S.E.2d 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Frosty Ice Cream, Inc. v. Hord
138 S.E.2d 816 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 S.E.2d 505, 262 N.C. 735, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hauser-nc-1964.