Town of Fuquay Springs v. Rowland

79 S.E.2d 774, 239 N.C. 299, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 364
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 15, 1954
Docket462
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 79 S.E.2d 774 (Town of Fuquay Springs v. Rowland) 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
Town of Fuquay Springs v. Rowland, 79 S.E.2d 774, 239 N.C. 299, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 364 (N.C. 1954).

Opinion

*301 Barnhill, J.

Defendant Rowland fails to assign as error tbe order overruling bis demurrer or to bring tbe exception forward and discuss tbe same in bis brief. Even so, in tbe light of our conclusion herein, this is immaterial.

A judge of a court of this State is not subject to civil action for errors committed in tbe discharge of bis official duties. Consequently no cause of action is stated against defendant Rowland, and as to him tbe action is dismissed ex mero motu.

“When . . . tbe complaint fails to state a cause of action, that is a defect upon tbe face of tbe record proper, of which tbe Supreme Court on appeal will take notice, and when such defects appear tbe Court will ex mero motu dismiss the action.” Denny, J., in Hopkins v. Barnhardt, 223 N.C. 617, 27 S.E. 2d 644, and cases cited; S. v. Ivey, 230 N.C. 172, 52 S.E. 2d 346; Dare County v. Mater, 235 N.C. 179, 69 S.E. 2d 244; Aiken v. Sanderford, 236 N.C. 760, 73 S.E. 2d 911.

While we concede that tbe Declaratory Judgment Act, Gr.S. cb. 1, art. 26, is comprehensive in scope and purpose, it does not, and was not intended to, embrace an action such as this. We cannot perceive that tbe Legislature, in enacting that statute, intended to vest in the Superior Courts of tbe State tbe general power to oversee, supervise, direct, or instruct officials of inferior courts in the discharge of their official duties.

Tbe defendant Council did not appeal. Even so, be is an official of tbe court. If be fails to collect and account for moneys rightfully belonging to plaintiff, or taxes items of cost which should not be taxed, or fails to tax items which should be taxed, tbe law provides an adequate and expeditious remedy in behalf of those who have tbe right to raise the issue in any of these particulars.

TJnder tbe circumstances it is unnecessary for us to discuss errors in tbe judgment in respect to certain items of cost.

The appeals are dismissed and tbe cause is remanded with direction that it be dismissed from tbe docket.

Appeals dismissed.

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

Related

Wynn v. Frederick
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2023
Wynn v. Frederick
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2021
James v. State
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Bare v. Atwood
693 S.E.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Jones v. N.C. Dept. of Correction
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2008
Culler v. Administrative Office of the Courts
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2007
Morton v. N.C. Department of Justice
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2006
Jones v. N.C. Department of Correction
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2005
Sharp v. Gulley
463 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. Tucker
323 S.E.2d 294 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1984)
Foust v. Hughes
204 S.E.2d 230 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
Horton v. Redevelopment Commission of High Point
137 S.E.2d 115 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
City of Henderson v. County of Vance
133 S.E.2d 201 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Davis v. Singleton
130 S.E.2d 10 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
May v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
129 S.E.2d 624 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro v. Hagins
128 S.E.2d 391 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Parrish v. Brantley
124 S.E.2d 533 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Skinner v. Empresa Transformadora De Productos Agropecuarios
113 S.E.2d 717 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Woody v. Pickelsimer
104 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Caldlaw, Inc. v. Caldwell
102 S.E.2d 829 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 S.E.2d 774, 239 N.C. 299, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-fuquay-springs-v-rowland-nc-1954.