Middle Canal Co. v. Whitley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN tried at February Term, 1916, of Beaui-okt; Shaw, J. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace to recover $45 and interest on account of an assessment under the drainage laws of this State made by plaintiff upon defendant’s land. Upon the trial in the Superior Court a motion to nonsuit was sustained, and plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
1. The contention of the defendant that the assessment is void upon the face of the record cannot be sustained. The constitutionality of the drainage laws of this State has been sustained in several cases and cannot now be successfully attacked. Leary v. Drainage Co., ante, 25. Drainage districts are regarded as quasi-public corporations created for private benefit, but endowed with the power of eminent domain and. other governmental functions for the public benefit. Sanderlin v. Lukew, 152 N. C., 738; Drainage Comrs. v. Farm Assn., 165 N. C., 697.
This assessment does not. appear to be void…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sanderlin v. LukenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Drainage Commissioners of Washington County District, No. 4 v. Eastern Home & Farm Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hopkins v. . BarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Rigsbee v. . BrogdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Town of Morganton v. AverySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Long Creek Drainage District v. HuffstetlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Wilkinson v. . BoomerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.