Rousseau v. . Bullis
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
It was conceded on the argument that the electioii which the defendants, in their counter-action, seek to enjoin, was held 5 May, 1931. Hence, as the gravamen of the cross-action, or the act therein sought to be restrained, is now fait accompli, or a fact accomplished, or “water in the mill-tail,” to quote an expressive phrase from the late Chief Justice Hoke, it would serve no useful purpose to moot an academic question. Rasberry v. Hicks, 199 N. C., 702; Glenn v. Cul breth, 197 N. C., 675, 150 S. E., 332; Kilpatrick v. Harvey, 170 N. C., 668, 86 S. E., 596; Sullivan v. Swain, 199 N. C., 819.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Moore v. Cooper Monument Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Harrison v. . BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Glenn v. . CulbrethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Kilpatrick v. . HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Rasberry v. HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Goad v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- Efird v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Groves v. . McDonaldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Ratcliff v. RodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Cahoon v. . Comrs. of HydeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.