Hill v. Stansbury
| Decision Date | 24 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 668.,668. |
| Citation | 224 N.C. 356,30 S.E.2d 150 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HILL et al. v. STANSBURY et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; H. Hoyle Sink, Judge.
Action by Thomas J. Hill and others against George L. Stansbury and others, Commissioners of Guilford County, to recover for benefit of county certain public funds allegedly unlawfully expended, wherein a consent judgment for plaintiffs was entered. From an order directing that named petitioner be reimbursed for expenses and that his attorneys be compensated in specified amount, defendant Commissioners and Guilford County appeal.
Error.
The plaintiffs, citizens and taxpayers of Guilford County, brought this action, together with two others, reported in 221 N.C. 339, 340, 20 S.E.2d 308, and 223 N. C. 193, 25 S.E.2d 604, under authority of G.S. § 128-10, formerly C.S. § 3206, to recover of defendants, County Commissioners, for the benefit of Guilford County, on account of public funds unlawfully expended, etc., the plaintiffs disclaiming any right personally to participate in the recovery.
Judgment was finally awarded the plaintiffs, for and on behalf of the county, in the sum of $16,396.51. Both sides noted an appeal, which they later abandoned. and entered consent judgment dismissing the appeals before the Resident Judge of the Twelfth Judicial District at chambers on 18 September, 1943. The amount of the judgment was thereupon paid to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Guilford County.
Thereafter the plaintiff, Thomas J. Hill, filed petition before the Resident Judge of the District requesting that he be reimbursed for expenses and counsel fees. After notice to the county attorney and county commissioners, an order was made by the Resident Judge on 15 October, 1943, directing that the petitioner be paid out of the funds derived from the judgment in this case, the sum of $460.65, and that his attorneys be compensated out of said funds in the amount of $3000.
By permission (similar to that granted in the case of Moreland v. Wamboldt, 208 N.C. 35, 179 S.E. 9), Guilford County and the Commissioners of Guilford County prosecute this appeal from the order, assigning errors.
Brooks, McLendon & Holderness, York & Boyd, and Andrew Joyner, Jr., all of Greensboro, for plaintiffs, appellees.
Thomas C. Hoyle and Hines & Boren, all of Greensboro, for defendants, appellants.
It is provided by G.S. § 128-10, formerly C.S. § 3206, that the citizen and taxpayer who sues in an action like the present and recovers, "shall receive one-third part, up to the sum of five hundred dollars, of the amount recovered, to indemnify him. for his services, but the amount received by the taxpayer and citizen as indemnity shall in no case exceed five hundred dollars." In the instant case, however, the complaint alleges "the plaintiffs disclaim any right personally to participate in the proceeds of any recovery that may be had in the suit." Hence, no provision was made in the judgment entered in the cause for indemnifying the plaintiffs for their services. Nor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Distributing Corporation v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...Co., 211 N.C. 329, 190 S.E. 478; Shepard v. Leonard, 223 N.C. 110, 25 S.E.2d 445. "It is the same as if there were no court." Hill v. Stansbury, N.C., 30 S.E.2d 150; City Monroe v. Niven, 221 N.C. 362, 20 S.E.2d 311. An agreed statement of facts "is equivalent to a special verdict, and the ......
-
State Distrib. Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co, 453.
...329, 190 S.E. 478; Shepard v. Leonard, 223 N.C. 110, 25 S.E.2d 445. "It is the same as if there were no court." Hill v. Stansbury, N.C, 30 S.E.2d 150; City of Monroe v. Niven, 221 N.C. 362, 20 S.E.2d 311. An agreed statement of facts "is equivalent to a special verdict, and the judge may re......
-
Quevedo v. Deans, 674
...to challenge in this action is well settled by the decisions of this Court. Powell v. Turpin, 224 N.C. 67, 29 S.E.2d 26; Hill v. Stansbury, 224 N.C. 356, 30 S.E.2d 150; City of Monroe v. Niven, 221 N.C. 362, 20 S.E.2d While it is true that one who buys at a judicial sale is required only to......
-
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co v. Guilford County
...fund legally available for that purpose. The judgment correctly declares that the restraining order in the case of Hill v. Stansbury, 224 N.C. 356, 30 S.E.2d 150, because of its exceptive provisions, does not apply to the present controversy, and would be no barrier to such action as the Co......