Legal Opinion

Stephens Co. v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 2, 1931PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBkogdeN, J.

Does a provision of the charter of the city of Charlotte, requiring notice, apply to an action for compensation for the taking of private property for public use?

The plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint by alleging “and that, by such taking and using, the defendant by virtue of an implied promise and agreement on its part to pay the plaintiff for said water mains, became indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of the value thereof.” By virtue of such amendment the plaintiff contends that the suit is based upon contract, and hence the charter provision does not aPp]y because such…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pender v. City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. Abbott Realty Co. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Dayton v. . AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Graham v. . CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  5. Graham v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Yates v. JamisonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  2. Hawkins v. Town of DallasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Derby Heights, Inc. v. Gantt Water & Sewer DistrictSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1960
  4. Lyda v. Town of MarionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Spaugh v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

7 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