Houston v. The Neuse River Navigation Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1862 |
| Citation | 53 N.C. 476,8 Jones 476 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. HOUSTON, Solicitor, v. THE NEUSE RIVER NAVIGATION COMPANY. |
An information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto against a corporation, to have its privileges declared forfeited, because of neglect and abuse in the exercise of them, must be filed in the name of the Attorney General of the State, and cannot be instituted in the name of a solicitor of a judicial circuit.
In a matter of a public nature, the officer, who acts for the State, does not pay costs to the other party.
THIS was an INFORMATION in the nature of a quo warranto, heard at the Fall Term, 1861, of Craven Superior Court.
The information sets forth divers causes, why the corporation should be considered as having forfeited its privileges, but from the view taken of the case in this Court, neither of these allegations, nor the grounds of defense, relied on in the answer, are material to be stated. The cause was disposed of in the Court below by a pro forma judgment, that the information be dismissed at the plaintiff's costs, from which plaintiff appealed.
J. W. Bryan, for the plaintiff .
Attmore, for the defendant .
This is an information filed on behalf of the State by the plaintiff, as solicitor of the second judicial circuit, in the Superior Court of law for the county of Craven, against the defendant, to enquire by what warrant the company is now exercising its corporate franchises, it being alleged that it has forfeited them. The information was filed by leave of the Court, first had and obtained. The defendant appeared, by attorney, and put in an answer, and upon the hearing in the Court below, the information pro forma, was ordered to be dismissed at the plaintiff's costs; and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Upon the argument here, it was objected that the information was improperly filed by a solicitor, and it is contended that it must be dismissed, because it was not instituted under the order of the General Assembly, or the Governor, or the Attorney General of the State, as directed by the 25th section of the 26th chapter of the Revised Code. The objection is, we think, well taken, and is fatal to the proceeding in the present form. The information is in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, instituted on the behalf of the sovereign, and it can be used only in the cases and in the manner prescribed by the sovereign. It follows that, as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex inf. Norman v. Ellis
... ... 365; State v. Buckland, 5 Ohio St. 216; Houston ... v. Neuse R. Nav. Co., 53 N.C. 476; State ex rel. v ... Williams, ... ...
-
State ex Inf. Norman v. Ellis
...quo warranto proceedings in the Supreme Court. State v. Thompson, 34 Ohio St. 365; State v. Buckland, 5 Ohio St. 216; Houston v. Neuse R. Nav. Co., 53 N.C. 476; State ex rel. v. Williams, 221 Mo. 327; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.) 598-605; Tuscaloosa S. & A. Assn. v. State, 58 Ala. 54; R.......
-
Walling v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
...150, 154 N.W. 168, Ann.Cas.1917E, 332; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Harmon, 159 Ky. 59, 166 S.W. 786, Ann.Cas.1915D, 562; Houston v. Neuse River Nav. Co., 53 N.C. 476; Wyse v. Yellott, 119 Md. 463, 87 A. 419; State v. Orangeburg County Treasurer, 10 S.C. 40; General Board etc. v. Robertson, 11......
-
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover
...to the defendant for costs in case the proceedings fail. State v. Boston, 25 Vt. 433; Attorney General v. Illinois, 85 Ill. 516; Houston v. Neuse, 53 N. C. 476. This conclusion necessarily follows from the rule that the state, like any other sovereign, does not pay costs unless otherwise pr......