Laughinghouse v. City of New Bern
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
'WiNBORNE, J.
On Plaintiffs’ Appeal: The only assignment of error presented here is based upon exception to the refusal of the trial court to grant a writ of mandamus as prayed by the plaintiffs. On the facts alleged and shown, the exception is not well taken.
"Mandamus lies only to compel a party to do that which it is his duty to do without it. It confers no new authority. The party seeking the writ must have a clear legal right to demand it, and the party to be coerced must be under a legal obligation to perform the act sought to be enforced.” Person v. Doughton, 186 N.C. 723, 120 S.E. 481;…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Person v. DoughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Person v. . DoughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- White v. . Comrs. of JohnstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Steele v. Locke Cotton Mills Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Riddle v. . LedbetterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. HordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Moody v. Transylvania CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- St. George v. HansonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Ponder v. JoslinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Austin v. ShawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.