TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Brunswick County

Seaboard Air Line Railway Company v. Brunswick County.

Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Brunswick Cnty., 152 S.E. 627 (N.C. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 2, 1930
Judges
CoNNOR
Citations
152 S.E. 627198 N.C. 5491930 N.C. LEXIS 407

Opinion of the Court — CoNNOR

CoNNOR, J.

It does not appear on the record filed in this Court by the defendant that defendant excepted to the judgment or appealed therefrom to this Court. The judgment is set out in the case on appeal which was served on counsel for plaintiff. There are no entries, however, showing any exception by defendant, or any notice of appeal to the plaintiff, either in open court or within the time prescribed by statute. C. S., 641; C. S., 642. The appeal docketed in this Court by the defendant must therefore be dismissed.

Corp. Com. v. R. R., 185 N. C., 435 , 117 S. E., 563 ;

Howell v. Jones, 109 N. C., 102 , 13 S. E., 889 . The record filed in this Court must show at least that an appeal was taken from the judgment. Otherwise this Court acquires no jurisdiction of the action. Const. of N. C., Art. IY, sec. 8.

The assignments of error shown in the transcript filed in this Court are not based upon exceptions appearing in the case on appeal. They *551 will therefore not be considered. They do not supply the want of exceptions.

Boyer v. Jarrell, 180 N. C., 479 , 105 S. E., 9 .

The question discussed on the hearing in this Court, to wit: Whether in the absence of a demand on the treasurer of the county, within thirty days after the payment to the sheriff, under protest in writing, for the refund of money paid to him for a tax illegally levied by the county, the taxpayer is entitled to recover in an action instituted under C. S., 7979, is not decided for the reason that this Court is without jurisdiction of the action. In this ease, the demand for refund was made, within the required time, of the sheriff, to whom the money was paid, under protest, in writing, and also of the board of county commissioners; no demand, however, was made of the treasurer of the county, as required by the statute. Ordinarily, where an action is authorized by statute, and can be maintained only because of statutory authority, the provisions of the statute must be strictly complied with. A substantial compliance is not sufficient. The appeal is Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1930: 11938: 11943: 11948: 11949: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mason v. Moore County Board of Commissioners51 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. 1948)
  2. Power Co. v. Clay County197 S.E. 603 (N.C. 1938)
  3. Allen ex rel. Allen v. Hunnicutt52 S.E.2d 18 (N.C. 1949)
  4. Moose v. Barrett27 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. 1943)
  5. Pruitt v. Wood156 S.E. 126 (N.C. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Allen ex rel. Allen v. Hunnicutt52 S.E.2d 18 (N.C. 1949)
  2. Mason v. Moore County Board of Commissioners51 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. 1948)
  3. Moose v. Barrett27 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. 1943)
  4. Power Co. v. Clay County197 S.E. 603 (N.C. 1938)
  5. Pruitt v. Wood156 S.E. 126 (N.C. 1930)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Corp. Com. v. R. R., 117 S.E. 563 (N.C. 1923) 14
Howell v. Jones, 13 S.E. 889 (N.C. 1891) 9
Boyer v. Jarrell, 105 S.E. 9 (N.C. 1920) 6

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