Scott v. Smith
J. A. Scott v. K. B. Smith and Samuel Hinnant.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Faircloth, C. J.:
The commissioners of the town of Pikeville passed an ordinance declaring it unlawful and *95 punishable by fine to play baseball, foot-ball &c., within the corporate limits of the town without permission of the Mayor, who is one of the defendants, and the plaintiff brings this action to restrain the threatened enforcement -of the ordinance by the defendant, Mayor, on the ground that the ordinance is void and in violation of the constitution, in that it deprives the citizens of their “liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor and the pursuit of happiness.”
If the ordinance is lawful and valid, as insisted by the defendants, the plaintiff has no cause of complaint and can maintain no form of civil action. If it is void, as insisted by the plaintiff, then he has misconceived his remedy, for a court of equity will not interpose when the plaintiff has a remedy at law by civil action for damages, in which, and in a criminal action also, the validity of the ordinance would be presented. At present we do not express anjr opinion upon that question.
Cohen v. Commissioners of Goldsboro, 77 N. C., 2 ;
Wardens v. Washington, 109 N. C., 21 . The injunction is dissolved and the action dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.