State v. . Rice

2 S.E. 180, 97 N.C. 421
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1887·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

MerrimoN, J.,

(after stating the facts). We cannot distinguish this case from State v. Crenshaw, 94 N. C., 877, and State v. Cainan, Ibid., 883. In those cases, and that of Commissioners v. Harris, 7 Jones, 281, it was held that a town ordinance that left the fine or penalty to be imposed uncertain as to the amount of the same, was yoid for uncertainty. Here the fine to be imposed might be five dollars or any less sum. It was therefore uncertain, and the ordinance void.

There is no error. Let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court according to law. It is so ordered.

No error. Affirmed.

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

State v. . Rice, 2 S.E. 180, 97 N.C. 421 (N.C. 1887).

2 S.E. 180 (State v. . Rice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Casey
201 N.C. 620 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
State v. . Irvin
35 S.E. 430 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)