Houston v. Neuse River Navigation
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an INFORMATION in the nature of a quo warranto, heard at the Fall Term, 1861, of Craven Superior Court. The information sets forth divers causes, why the corporation should be considered as having forfeited its privileges, but from the view taken of the case in this Court, neither of these allegations, nor the grounds of defense, relied on in the answer,' are material to be stated.
Read the full summary
This was an INFORMATION in the nature of a quo warranto, heard at the Fall Term, 1861, of Craven Superior Court. The information sets forth divers causes, why the corporation should be considered as having forfeited its privileges, but from the view taken of the case in this Court, neither of these allegations, nor the grounds of defense, relied on in the answer,' are material to be stated. The cause was disposed of in the Court below by ajpro forma judgment, that the information be dismissed at the plaintiff’s costs, from which plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
This is an information filed on behalf of the State by the plaintiff, as solicitor of the second judicial circuit, in the Superior Court of law for the county of Craven, against the defendant, to enquire by what warrant the company is now exercising its corporate franchises, it being alleged that it has forfeited them. The information was filed by leave of the Court, first had and obtained. The defendant appeared, by attorney, and put in an answer, and upon the hearing in the Court below, the information pro forma, was ordered to be dismissed at the plaintiff’s costs; and the plaintiff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Walling v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1947
- State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of DoverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- People ex rel. Fulton v. O'RyanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922