Legal Opinion

Dry v. Board of Drainage Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 30, 1940PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

In tbe chapter on Civil Procedure and sub-chapter relating to mandamus, tbe following occurs: “867. For money demand. In application for a writ of mandamus when tbe plaintiff seeks to enforce a money demand, tbe summons, pleadings and practice are tbe same as prescribed for civil actions: ‘Provided tbat in all applications seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce a money demand on actions ex contractu against any county, city, town or taxing district witbin tbe State, tbe applicant shall allege and show in tbe complaint that tbe claim or debt has been reduced to a final judgment establishing…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Knight v. . HoughtallingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  2. Person v. . WattsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. Thompson v. Allen CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  4. City of Chicago v. HasleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1861
  5. City of Hickory v. Catawba CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sutton v. FiggattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Fremont City Board of Education v. Wayne County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Champion v. Vance County Board of HealthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Hawkins v. Federal Land BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API