Johnson v. . Marrow
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDenNY, J.
The plaintiffs insist the court below committed error in holding they were not the proper officials to institute an action for the custody of the securities involved herein. The plaintiffs are relying on Section 775, The Code (now G. S., 155-18); Hewlett v. Nutt, 79 N. C., 263, and Bray v. Barnard, 109 N. C., 44, 13 S. E., 729. However, in view of the provisions contained in G. S., 153-2 (1), which authorizes a county “To sue and be sued in the name of the County,” we think in the absence of a refusal of the Board of Commissioners to institute such action, it should have been brought on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fountain v. County of PittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- State Ex Rel. Hewlett v. NuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- Bray v. . BarnardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Lenoir County v. CrabtreeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Lenoir v. . CrabtreeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Atkins v. . McAdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Dilday v. Beaufort County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Piland v. Hertford County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Lamb v. Board of Education of Randolph CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Parker v. County of AnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.