Legal Opinion

Laughinghouse v. City of New Bern

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 8, 1950No. 319PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Person v. DoughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  2. Person v. . DoughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. White v. . Comrs. of JohnstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  4. Steele v. Locke Cotton Mills Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  5. Riddle v. . LedbetterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. HordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  2. Moody v. Transylvania CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. St. George v. HansonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Ponder v. JoslinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Austin v. ShawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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