Town of Hillsborough v. Smith
Decision Date | 16 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 7015SC452,7015SC452 |
Citation | 178 S.E.2d 18,10 N.C.App. 70 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a Municipal Corporation v. Clarence Dupree SMITH and wife, Mae L. Smith. |
Graham & Cheshire, by Lucius M. Cheshire, Hillsborough, for plaintiff-appellee.
Alonzo Brown Coleman, Jr., Winston, Coleman & Bernholz, Hillsborough, for defendants-appellants.
Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, by Larry B. Sitton, Greensboro, for Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, surety on plaintiff's bond.
. Galligan v. Town of Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427. Except where waived under authority of statute the common law rule of governmental immunity is still the law in North Carolina. Galligan v. Town of Chapel Hill, Supra; Stephenson v. Raleigh, 232 N.C. 42, 59 S.E.2d 195.
'In enacting and enforcing zoning regulations, a municipality acts as a governmental agency and exercises the police power of the State.' Taylor v. Bowen, 272 N.C. 726, 158 S.E.2d 837. See also 5 Strong, N.C. Index 2nd, Municipal Corporations, § 12, p. 633 G.S. § 1--496 and G.S. § 1--497 were repealed effective 1 January 1970, at which time G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 65 became effective. Therefore at the time plaintiff instituted this action and at the time the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was filed in this action on 10 December 1969, G.S. § 1--496 and G.S. § 1--497 were in effect.
Defendants strenuously argue that because the legislature did not exempt municipalities from the necessity of posting bond in accordance with G.S. § 1--496, it follows that posting bond as required by statute constitutes an authorized waiver of governmental immunity. Defendants contend that their argument is strengthened by the provisions of the new G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 65; it is their contention that under Rule 65 the State or one of its political subdivisions will waive its governmental immunity by seeking an injunction. It is unnecessary for us to interpret G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 65 at this time; suffice to say, we find therein no expression of Past legislative intent.
A municipal corporation may not waive or contract away its governmental immunity in the absence of legislative authority for such action. Galligan v. Town of Chapel Hill, Supra. G.S. § 160--179 authorizes a municipality to institute an action to restrain a violation of its zoning ordinances, Gastonia v. Parrish, 271 N.C. 527, 157 S.E.2d 154; but this statute does not authorize or require the municipality to waive its governmental immunity. And a municipality does not waive that immunity by the mere act of instituted a civil action. Morgantown Graded School v. McDowell, 157 N.C. 316, 72 S.E. 1083; Battle v. Thompson, 65 N.C. 406. We think the language used in Hollifield v. Keller, 238 S.C. 584, 121 S.E.2d 213, is appropriate here:
Thus, the act of the Town of Hillsborough in posting the bond was an unauthorized attempt to waive its governmental immunity, and, as such, was Ultra vires. Because the act was Ultra vires it follows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
High Point Bank v. Highmark Props., LLC
...a debtor through bankruptcy does not discharge the obligation of a guarantor under a guaranty agreement); and in Town v. Smith, 10 N.C.App. 70, 74, 178 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1970), cert. denied,277 N.C. 727, 178 S.E.2d 831 (1971), where we stated that “[a] surety for an idiot or an infant, or a su......
-
Lonon v. Talbert
...authority of statute the common law rule of governmental immunity is still the law in North Carolina." Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 10 N.C.App. 70, 72, 178 S.E.2d 18, 20 (1970), cert. denied, 277 N.C. 727, 178 S.E.2d 831 As to traffic control devices, a governmental subdivision which has ......
-
Edwards v. Akion, 8010SC961
...performing a governmental function. Galligan v. Town of Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 10 N.C.App. 70, 178 S.E.2d 18 (1970), cert. denied, 277 N.C. 727, 178 S.E.2d 831 (1971). This immunity is waived only under the authority of statute. Id. ......
-
Baucom's Nursery Co. v. Mecklenburg County, 8726SC1046
...the common law rule of governmental immunity. Orange County v. Heath, 14 N.C.App. 44, 187 S.E.2d 345 (1972); Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 10 N.C.App. 70, 178 S.E.2d 18 (1970), cert. denied, 277 N.C. 727, 178 S.E.2d 831 (1971). The individual county commissioners are likewise engaged in th......