State v. Suncrest Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Suncrest Lumber Co.

147 S.E. 682, 197 N.C. 4, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 127

DecidedApril 3, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E. 682 (State v. Suncrest Lumber Co.) 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

State v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 147 S.E. 682, 197 N.C. 4, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 127 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: The constitutionality of chapter 48, Public-Laws 1927, was asserted in Yarborough v. Park Commission, 196 N. C., 284, 145 S. E., 563, and Suncrest Lumber Co. v. North Carolina Park Commission, 29 Fed. (2d), 823, S. c., 30 Fed. (2d), 121.

These cases also hold that the North Carolina Park Commission, .while denominated in the act as a “body politic and corporate,” is not a municipal or private corporation in the ordinary sense, but rather an agency of the State clothed with the power of eminent domain to be *6 exercised on behalf of the State of North Carolina and in its name. Section 18. The demurrer, therefore, was properly overruled on the first ground.

Likewise, on authority of these same cases, the demurrer was properly overruled on the second ground set out therein. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat what has been so recently said- in the cases cited. They apparently dispose of all the questions debated before us.

In considering the present appeal, we are restricted to the grounds specified and designated in the demurrer. C. S., 512; Glass Co. v. Hotel Corp., post, 10; Seawell v. Cole, 194 N. C., 546, 140 S. E., 85.

Affirmed.

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