Legal Opinion · Dissent

Humphrey v. . Churchill, Sheriff

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 8, 1940Published

1DissentSeawell, J.

The order of sale in this case attempts to confer on the sheriff, a ministerial officer, the judicial function, since it makes him the judge of what property was used “by Bill Humphrey” in conducting the nuisance complained of. Such a power is not only dangerous to the public, but its delegation has been universally condemned as unconstitutional. 16 C. J., 505; Strickland v. Cox, 102 N. C., 411, 9 S. E., 414. It makes no difference that it is in the words of the statute. That is a charter for the court and jury, not the sheriff.

Even the Legislature cannot confer on a ministerial executive…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Daniels v. HomerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. Strickland v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  3. Strickland v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  4. Barham v. . PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API