TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Grantham

In the Matter of Barfield Grantham, a Shoemaker.

In re Grantham, 60 N.C. 73 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1863
Judges
Battle
Citations
60 N.C. 73
Headnotes
The conscription act requires that the trade on which the claim of a mechanic. to exemption is based, shall be his regular occupation and employment, and not that at which he may work occasionally and at odd times.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of'his Honor.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Battle

Battle, J.

The petitioner claims to be exempt from military service as a conscript, upon the ground that he was a shoemaker. The testimony offered in support of his claim, shows that for some years past, he had a small farm on’ which he worked during the spring and summer, blit during'fall and winter he made shoes for his own family, and for some of his neighbors. In August, 1862, he commenced, and continued to do more work in the business of making shoes than he had been previously accustomed to do, though it does not appear that he devoted himself exclusively to that occupation.

*74 This proof is not, in our opinion, sufficient to establish the right to the exemption for which the party contends. The conscription act requires that the trade upon which the claim of a mechanic to exemption is based, shall be his regular occupation and employment, and not that at which he may work occasionally and at odd times. A mechanic is excused from military service, not for his own ease, and as a favor to Iiim-sepf, but for the benefit of the public,- whom, it is supposed, that he can serve better by working at his' trade, than in any other way. He must stand towards the community upon the same footiug that a common carrier does, so that all persons whp may have occasion to claim the aid of his services, may, at all seasonable times, be able to obtain it.

The petitioner has not shown himself to be within the limits of this rule, and his application for a discharge is, there fore, rejected.

Pee CueiaM, Application rejected.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1896: 118962026peak 1896 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McDonald v. Morrow26 S.E. 132 (N.C. 1896)

Most recent

  1. McDonald v. Morrow26 S.E. 132 (N.C. 1896)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list