Legal Opinion

Mabe v. City of Winston-Salem

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 18, 1925PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.,

after stating tbe case: It is conceded that tbe defendant, city of Winston-Salem, which owns a municipal light and waterworks system, and operates tbe same in its governmental capacity, cannot be held liable in damages for a failure to furnish a sufficient supply of either water or light. Howland v. Asheville, 174 N. C., 749; Harrington v. Greenville, 159 N. C., 632.

C. S., 2807, appearing in tbe chapter on “Municipal Corporations,” is as follows: “Tbe city may own and maintain its own light and waterworks system, to furnish water for fire and other purposes, and light to tbe city…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  2. Bunch v. Town of EdentonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
  3. Mendel & Co. v. City of WheelingWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Dorsey v. Town of HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  5. Harrington v. Town of GreenvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rhodes v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. McKinney v. City of High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. State Ex Rel. East Lenoir Sanitary District v. City of LenoirSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Great American Insurance Company v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. City of Asheville v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API