Holley v. Smith.
Holley v. . Smith
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
Clark, C. J.
This is the same case that was before us in 130 N. C., 85 . The plaintiff avers that the Court, in that decision, overlooked chapter 532, Laws 1891. But if so, bis remedy was by petition to rehear. The former decision is the law of this ease, and the appellant can not escape the safeguards and requirements exacted for rehearings by simply taking another appeal presenting exactly the same proposition of law to the Court.
Perry v. Railroad, 129 N. C., 333 , and cases there cited.
But, treating this as an original appeal, there is no error. The Act of 1891 (chapter 532), which was repealed by Act of 1893, chapter 4, especially provided that persons making entry of land covered by navigable water should be “confined *37 to straight lines, including only the fronts of their own lands'.” The locus in quo is not in front of the plaintiff’s land, but in front of another’s, and as to such land the entry was unauthorized by law and void.
No Error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 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.