Williamson v. City of High Point

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Williamson v. City of High Point

200 S.E. 388, 214 N.C. 693, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 415

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 4, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 200 S.E. 388 (Williamson v. City of High Point) 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

Williamson v. City of High Point, 200 S.E. 388, 214 N.C. 693, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 415 (N.C. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe position of appellant that tbe court was without authority to modify tbe decree entered at tbe February Term is correct. Yerys v. Ins. Co., 210 N. C., 442, 187 S. E., 583; Southerland v. R. R., 148 N. C., 442, 62 S. E., 517; 32 C. J., 506. Tbe basis for tbe final decree was, that tbe original undertaking “goes far beyond tbe powers conferred by tbe Eevenue Bond Act of 1935, and is ultra vires." But as we understand tbe record, tbe defendants’ prayer to this effect was disregarded, and rightly so.

Tbe sole question before tbe Court was whether tbe final decree entered at tbe February Term has been violated. Bacon v. Onset Bay Grove Assn., 286 Mass., 487, 190 N. E., 713; Barrone v. Moseley, 144 Ky., 294, 137 S. W., 1048. Tbe allegation and finding of dissimilarity between tbe two undertakings appears sufficient to support tbe action of tbe court in discharging tbe rule for contempt. This is tbe only question presented by tbe appeal.

Adequate cause for disturbing tbe judgment and entering one in favor of appellant has not been made to appear on tbe present record.

Affirmed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe position of appellant that tbe court was without authority to modify tbe decree entered at tbe February Term is correct. Yerys v. Ins. Co., 210 N. C., 442, 187 S. E., 583; Southerland v. R. R., 148 N. C., 442, 62 S. E., 517; 32 C. J., 506. Tbe basis for tbe final decree was, that tbe original undertaking “goes far beyond tbe powers conferred by tbe Eevenue Bond Act of 1935, and is ultra vires." But as we understand tbe record, tbe defendants’ prayer to this effect was disregarded, and rightly so.

Tbe sole question before tbe Court was whether tbe final decree entered at tbe February Term has been violated. Bacon v. Onset Bay Grove Assn., 286 Mass., 487, 190 N. E., 713; Barrone v. Moseley, 144 Ky., 294, 137 S. W., 1048. Tbe allegation and finding of dissimilarity between tbe two undertakings appears sufficient to support tbe action of tbe court in discharging tbe rule for contempt. This is tbe only question presented by tbe appeal.

Adequate cause for disturbing tbe judgment and entering one in favor of appellant has not been made to appear on tbe present record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E. 388, 214 N.C. 693, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-city-of-high-point-nc-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack