State Ex Rel. McCall v. Zachary
This text of 34 S.E. 962 (State Ex Rel. McCall v. Zachary) 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.
Opinions
The decision of this cause, according to the opinion, is governed by the judgment in McCall v. Webb, at this term.
CLARK, J., dissents. We have carefully examined the facts of this case and find them to be substantially the same as those in McCall v. Webb, at this term. This being so, the opinion of the Court in that case must govern our judgment in this case.
The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the office sued for, it being the solicitorship of the Criminal Court of Madison County, and to the fees and emoluments thereof; and the defendant, Zachary, is not entitled to the same, nor to the fees and emoluments of said office. Let the writ issue as prayed for.
Affirmed.
CLARK, J., dissents for reason given in the dissenting opinions inMcCall v. Webb and Abbott v. Beddingfield, at this term.
Overruled: Mial v. Ellington,
(251)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 S.E. 962, 125 N.C. 249, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mccall-v-zachary-nc-1899.