Wikel v. Board of Commissioners

27 S.E. 117, 120 N.C. 451
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 27 S.E. 117 (Wikel v. Board of Commissioners) 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
Wikel v. Board of Commissioners, 27 S.E. 117, 120 N.C. 451 (N.C. 1897).

Opinion

ClaeK, J.:

This was an application for a m andamm against the County Commissioners of Jackson county to compel them to build a certain bridge over the Tuckaseegee river and levy a tax for that purpose, as required by Chapter 12,- Acts 1895. The defendants filed a demurrer denying the power of the Legislature to enact such Statute. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants, uot availing themselves of the leave granted them to answer over, judgment for a peremptory mandamus and for costs was given against them, from which they appealed. Bending the *452 appeal to this court, tbe Legislature, by an Act ratified 6th March, 1897, repealed the aforesaid Chapter 12, Acts of 1895. This destroyed the cause of action and there only remains the judgment against the defendant for costs.

It has been repeatedly held that where, pending an appeal, the subject matter of an action, or the canse of action, is destroyed, in any manner whatever, this court will not go into a consideration of the abstract question which party should rightly have won, merely in order to adjudicate the costs, but the judgment below as to the costs will stand. State v. Horne, 119 N. C., 853; Blount v. Simmons, 119 N. C., 50. Here the demurrer raises grave questions of constitutional law, and the court will not consider and determine them after the cause of action has been destroyed. The court takes judicial notice without formal supplemental plea, of the repealing Statute, which is a public act. By the judgment below the plaintiff, who sued as a taxpayer, acquired no personal rights except as to the judgment for costs, and of that he could not be deprived by the repealing Statute. The Code, Section 3764. The judgment for costs below is affirmed, and each party will pay his own costs in this court, as thetrepealing Statute was enacted before judgment here. Action abates.

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

Related

State v. Daw
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2024
Hoke County Board of Education v. State
749 S.E.2d 451 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2013)
Glenn-Robinson v. Acker
538 S.E.2d 601 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Crumpton v. Crumpton
227 S.E.2d 587 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
221 S.E.2d 322 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
Benvenue Parent-Teacher Ass'n v. Nash County Board of Education
170 S.E.2d 473 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1969)
Smith v. Worksman
99 A.2d 712 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1953)
Swink v. . Horn
40 S.E.2d 352 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Miller v. . Roberts
193 S.E. 286 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Monaco v. Matarrese
5 N.E.2d 755 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1936)
Board of Education v. . Commissioners of Johnston
152 S.E. 156 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Glenn v. . Culbreth
150 S.E. 332 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
State Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners v. Blue
130 S.E. 743 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Coffey v. . Rader
110 S.E. 106 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Gulf Refining Co. v. McKernan
102 S.E. 505 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Brinson v. . Duplin County
91 S.E. 708 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
McDowell v. Fuller
150 N.W. 353 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Pearson v. Quinn
166 S.W. 746 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1914)
Reid v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
78 S.E. 306 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Vance v. Rankin
62 N.E. 807 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 S.E. 117, 120 N.C. 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wikel-v-board-of-commissioners-nc-1897.