State ex rel. Morris v. Shinn

Are appellants personally liable for the unpaid portion of a fee allowed counsel for plaintiff? That is the question for decision. It arises on this factual situation: The Solicitor, acting under the authority of G.S. 19-2, instituted this action to abate a nuisance. G.S. 19-5. The complaint alleges: Appellants owned two lots in Kannapolis. A house is situate on these lots. This property was used by their co-defendant as “a bootlegging and gambling establishment.” Appellants had knowledge of the immoral and illegal use of their property.

The prayer of the complaint is for an order: (1)…