State ex rel. White v. Hill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil AotiÓN in tbe nature of quo warranto, beard upon tbe pleadings by Bowman, J., at May Term, 1899, of Pam-lico County, for tbe recovery of tbe office of Chief Inspector, under Act 1891, cbap. 13, to promote the oyster industry in North Carolina.
Read the full summary
Civil AotiÓN in tbe nature of quo warranto, beard upon tbe pleadings by Bowman, J., at May Term, 1899, of Pam-lico County, for tbe recovery of tbe office of Chief Inspector, under Act 1891, cbap. 13, to promote the oyster industry in North Carolina. Tbe complaint alleges that by virtue of said act tbe plaintiff was appointed to bis said office by tbe Governor on 22nd February, 1891, for a term of 4 years from that day, but that be has been illegally ousted from bis office by defendants, who claim to bold tbe office of Shell Eisb Commissioners, under Act of 1899, cbap- 19. Tbe answers allege…
1Opinion of the Court
Eaircloth, 0. J.
The plaintiff was duly appointed by the Governor “Chief Inspector” in Eebruary, 1897, for a term of 4 years, under an Act 1897, chap. 13, sec. 12, to provide for and promote the oyster industry of North Carolina. The defendants claim that plaintiff’s office was abolished by the Act of 1899, chap. 18, see. 3, and that he is entitled to the office as a Shell Eish Commissioner under and by virtue of the Act of 1899, chap. 19, passed at the same session of the Legislature.
The above statement presents the question so frequently presented to this Court in recent years, that is,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ward v. . Elizabeth CitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bank v. . WorthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Pacific Mutual Sales Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956