Johnson v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 527
Decision Date | 01 May 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 527,527 |
Citation | 130 S.E.2d 544,259 N.C. 371 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Frank A. JOHNSON and wife, Margie B. Johnson, Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Association, Randolph County Branch, and H. Wade Yates, Trustee for the Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Association, Randolph County Branch, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
Ottway Burton Asheboro, for plaintiffs-appellants.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., John C. Daniel, Jr., and Andrew McDaniel, Trial Attys., Raleigh, for the State.
The appellants undertake to challenge for the first time in this Court, the constitutionality of G.S. § 136-108, which reads as follows: 'After the filing of the plat, the judge, upon motion and ten (10) days' notice by either the Highway Commission or the owner, shall, either in or out of term, hear and determine any issue raised by the pleadings, other than the issue of damages, including, if controverted, questions of necessary and proper parties, title to the land, interest taken, and area taken.'
It is a well established rule of this Court that it will not decide a constitutional question which was not raised or considered in the court below.
In Phillips v. Shaw, Comr. of Revenue, 238 N.C. 518, 78 S.E.2d 314, this Court said: See also State v. Jones, 242 N.C. 563, 89 S.E.2d 129; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E.2d 1; Lane v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co., 258 N.C. 318, 128 S.E.2d 398.
The only other question presented on this appeal is whether or not the exhibits alone, which constituted the only evidence introduced by the defendant with respect to the area of land taken in connection with Project 5.572 and the location of the previously granted right of way, were sufficient to sustain the findings of the court below in this respect.
As we construe the statutes governing this type of action, an answer not served on the opposing party (according to the record, defendant's answer was not served on the plaintiffs), is deemed denied as to all affirmative allegations therein. Exhibits 'A' and 'B' were incorporated in the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro
... ... No. 9218SC459 ... Court of Appeals of North" Carolina ... July 20, 1993 ... \xC2" ... Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 2544, 105 ... The State's interest in protecting the well-being, ... thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some act the commission or ... Johnson v. Highway Commission, 259 N.C. 371, 373, 130 S.E.2d 544, ... ...
- New Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Stein
-
Bland v. City of Wilmington
... ... BLAND et al ... CITY OF WILMINGTON, North Carolina, et al ... Supreme Court of North ... 661] Johnson v. North Carolina State Highway Comm., 259 N.C ... Section 11.3 gives the Civil Service Commission, [278 N.C. 663] created by § 11.1, 'full charge ... ...
-
North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Nuckles, 688
... ... Immediate appeal was the procedure followed in Johnson v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 259 N.C. 371, 130 S.E.2d 544, a case involving a situation similar to this one. In Johnson, plaintiff ... ...