Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Bouldin v. Davis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The relator does not allege that he is entitled to the office or to any of its emoluments; but this allegation is not essential to the maintenance of the action. A civil action in the nature of quo war-ranto may be brought by the Attorney-General in the name of the State upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private party. C. S., 869, 870. A relator need not be a contestant for the office, but he must be a citizen and taxpayer within the jurisdiction over which an incumbent of the contested office exercises the functions prescribed by law. Foard v. Hall, 111 N. C., 369; Hines v.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kilbourn v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Ames and Others v. State of Kansas Ex Rel. Johnston. Kansas Pac. Ry Co. v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Rhyne v. . LipscombeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  4. Brown v. . TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  5. State Ex Rel. Foard v. HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Britt v. . Board of CanvassersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. State Ex rel.Swaringen v. PoplinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. State ex rel. Barlow v. BenfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. State Ex Rel. Sathre v. QuickstadNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  5. State Ex Rel. Bouldin v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

2 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