Dyer v. Ellington
Decision Date | 09 June 1900 |
Citation | 126 N.C. 941,36 S.E. 177 |
Parties | DYER. v. ELLINGTON et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
PENALTY—PENDING ACTION—ACT RELIEVING DEFENDANTS—EFFECT.
Code, § 3816, requires commissioners of towns to publish certain statements of taxes and expenditures, under penalty of $100, to any person who shall sue therefor. Plaintiff sued defendants, commissioners of L., for such penalty; and while the action was pending, and before judgment, the legislature passed Pub. Laws 1899, c. 349, releasing such commissioners of L. from any and all penalties for failure to comply with section 3816. Code, § 3764, provides that the repeal of a statute shall not affect any action brought before repeal for any forfeitures incurred or rights accruing under such statute. No other similar action was pending against defendants. Held, that as section 3816 created no contract between plaintiff and the state, and as the relieving act was not a repeal thereof, within the meaning of section 3764, and as the latter section was but a rule of construction, plaintiff's cause of action was destroyed by the relieving act before he obtained a vested right to the penalty, and hence his suit could not be maintained.
Appeal from superior court, Rockingham county; Shaw, Judge.
Action by W. F. Dyer against R. R. Ellington and others, commissioners of the town of Leaksville. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
This was a civil action tried before his honor, Thomas J. Shaw, at August term of the superior court of Rockingham county, 1899, brought before a justice of the peace in Leaksville township, for the purpose of recovering a penalty of $100 against the defendants named in the caption for failure, as commissioners of the town of Leaksville, to publish, as required by section 3816 of the Code, a statement of taxes levied and collected in j said town, together with a statement of the amounts expended by them, and for what pur-j pose, during the year 1897, and by due appeal was brought to the superior court, where a trial by jury was waived, and, by consent, his honor found the facts which appear in the judgment. Upon the facts found, the defendants moved for judgment, and the motion was disallowed, and his honor rendered the following judgment: . ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair
... ... v. Austin, 21 Mich. 390; Davidson v. Witthaus, 106 App. Div. 182; West Troy Fire Dept. v. Ogden, 59 How. Pr. 21; Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 324; Dyer v. Ellington, 126 N.C. 941, 36 S.E. 177; Railroad Co. v. Wells, 65 Ohio St. 313, 62 N.E. 332, 58 L.R.A. 651. (9) Missouri Legislature has construed ... ...
-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair
... ... 390; ... Davidson v. Witthaus, 106 A.D. 182; West Troy ... Fire Dept. v. Ogden, 59 How. Pr. 21; Butler v ... Palmer, 1 Hill, 324; Dyer v. Ellington, 126 ... N.C. 941, 36 S.E. 177; Railroad Co. v. Wells, 65 ... Ohio St. 313, 62 N.E. 332, 58 L. R. A. 651. (9) Missouri ... ...
- Wallace v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC
-
Blue Ridge Interurban R. Co. v. Oates
...the plaintiffs could have acted, if indeed they were authorized to condemn this property by chapter 302, Laws 1907. In Dyer v. Ellington, 126 N.C. 941, 36 S.E. 177, it said: "Until the right becomes vested, we think it can be destroyed by the Legislature. * * * As laws of one Legislature do......