Hannan v. Grizzard
| Decision Date | 03 June 1887 |
| Citation | 2 S.E. 600,96 N.C. 293 |
| Parties | HANNAN v. GRIZZARD and others. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Halifax county.
W. H. Day and J. M. Mullen, for plaintiff.
Thos. N. Hill, R. O. Burton, and S. Whitaker, for defendant.
The plaintiff, with the certificate of his election to the office of register of deeds in the county of Halifax from the county canvassing board, presented himself before the defendants, the county commissioners, on the first Monday in December, 1882, and, tendering the bond required by law, demanded to be inducted into office on taking the prescribed oaths. Against this was offered a protest from some of the electors on the ground of non-residence, rendering him, under the constitution, ineligible. To this paper a response was made, denying that he was not a resident of the county, and averring a want of jurisdiction in the commissioners to inquire into the controverted fact. The defendants thereupon adjourned the meeting for one week, that the parties might prepare their testimony, and, on reassembling, instituted an investigation, the result of which was to declare a vacancy by reason of the alleged disqualification; and then they proceeded to fill it by the appointment of the defendant Grizzard, chairman of the board, and the competitor in the election. He thereupon entered into the office, and held it until the fifth day of November of the next year, meanwhile receiving the fees and perquisites of the place, when the occupant was ousted by a judgment of this court in an action of the plaintiff instituted to test the title to the office. The present action, begun on April 7, 1884, is instituted against the defendants, then constituting the board of county commissioners, to recover in damages the losses in fees and other emoluments sustained by their refusal to admit him to the office, and for this illegal action only; the recipient of those moneys, upon whom the liability primarily fails, being wholly insolvent, and he is associated with the other defendants as a body in the exclusion. In the case made up for this court, and signed by opposing counsel, it is admitted that the defendants, “in passing upon the question of eligibility of the plaintiff, acted in good faith and conscientiously, in discharge of what they conceived to be one of their duties as the board commissioners of Halifax county.”
The first inquiry, the solution of which in favor of the defendants disposes of all the other matters involved in the appeal, is whether they, in assuming jurisdiction in the premises, and acting upon their conscientious convictions, incurred personal liability to the plaintiff for their action in refusing to admit him. In Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199, the plaintiff (or petitioner, as he is called) received a majority of the votes cast for the office of sheriff of Moore county, but his induction into office was denied by a majority of the commissioners for the reason that he was disqualified to hold it and exercise its functions under the interdict contained in the recent amendment to the constitution of the United States, (article 14.) Thereupon he obtained an order for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the board of commissioners to compel them to admit him, and from this judgment the defendants appealed. Upon the hearing, the ruling was reversed, the court being of opinion that the disqualification did attach, and that the defendants did not commit a wrong in preventing the intrusion into office of a claimant not competent to fill it. The controversy then, as it now is, was as to whether the action of the commissioners was ministerial or judicial. Upon this point, READE, J., speaking for the court, uses this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial