Town of Newton v. State Highway Commission
Decision Date | 05 October 1927 |
Citation | 139 S.E. 613,194 N.C. 303 |
Parties | TOWN OF NEWTON et al. v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
On petition to reopen decree. Petition dismissed.
For former opinion, see 194 N.C. 159, 138 S.E. 601. See, also 192 N.C. 834, 134 S.E. 483.
This is a petition made by both plaintiffs and defendant in the above-entitled cause.
W. C Feimster, of Newton, W. A. Self, of Hickory, Wilson Warlick of Newton, and Clyde R. Hoey, of Shelby, for plaintiffs.
Charles Ross, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
The joint petition made by both plaintiffs and defendant is as follows:
"First. That, in the opinion filed by this court on the 25th day of June, 1927, the defendants were enjoined from abandoning the existing road in Catawba county, designated as a portion of state highway No. 10, as now located and maintained.
Second. That, in a suit lately pending in Catawba county, between the same parties litigant, and involving the building of certain state highways in said county, all matters in controversy between the parties were amicably settled, subject to the approval of the court, and an agreed judgment was entered, copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part of this petition.
Third. That it is the desire and intention of the parties that the route from Catawba river to Newton, described in said agreed judgment and shown on the map annexed hereto, shall, when completed, be substituted for the existing and maintained location of route No. 10, and, in order that this agreement may be carried out, your petitioners are advised and believe that it will be necessary that the injunctive relief granted by the court on the 25th day of June, 1927, be modified.
Wherefore your petitioners now pray and move the court that the said cause be reopened by this court, and that the injunctive relief therein granted be modified to such extent as may be necessary to permit the agreed settlement between the parties to be carried out."
Const. N.C. art. 4, § 8, is as follows:
In Railroad v. Horton, 176 N.C. at page 117, 96 S.E. 955, it is held:
:
See Const. N.C. art. 4, §§ 8 and 9, supra; Cooper v. Commrs., 184 N.C. 615, 113 S.E. 569; Dredging Co. v. State, 191 N.C. 243, 131 S.E. 665; Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, rule 44, in 194 N.C. ___. See, also, annotation under C. S. § 1419.
Under the well-settled law of this jurisdiction, this court cannot entertain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Com'rs for Wake County v. State Highway Commission of North Carolina
... ... prescribed by the statute that this is a location of the road ... as a permanent link of the state system of highways." ... Newton v. Highway Com'n, 192 N.C. 54, 133 S.E ... 522; Id., 194 N.C. 159, 138 S.E. 601; Id., 194 N.C. 303, 139 ... S.E. 613; Smith v. Highway Com'n, 194 ... ...