State ex rel. Abbott v. Beddingfield
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civxt. ActioN in the nature of quo warranto, instituted in Ware Superior Court, at July Term, 1899, before Moore, J., and a jury trial being waived, was by consent, heard upon the pleadings.
Read the full summary
Civxt. ActioN in the nature of quo warranto, instituted in Ware Superior Court, at July Term, 1899, before Moore, J., and a jury trial being waived, was by consent, heard upon the pleadings. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint, that by the Act of 1891, chap. 320, a Railroad Commission was established, and that in March, 1897, he was duly elected a Commissioner, his term of office commencing April 1, IS 97, to continue sis years, and that he entered upon his office and discharged its duties up to April 4, 1899. That the defendant, claiming to be authorized under Act of 6th March, 1899,…
1Dissent
Oi.ark, ,r.,
dissenting. The Bill of Nights of the freemen of North Carolina (Constitution, Art. I, sec. 9), reads: “All power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.” This is copied verbatim from the great Bill of Nights of 1688, and sums up in four and a half lines the result of two great struggles carried on by our ancestors in England to maintain the right of the people to place their will on the statate book and have it'executed without hinderance by,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Russell v. FarleySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Newton v. CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Crenshaw v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- White v. HartSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Commonwealth ex rel. Hepburn v. MannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.