Wright v. Mcgee
Decision Date | 28 February 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 376.,376. |
Citation | 206 N.C. 52,173 S.E. 31 |
Parties | WRIGHT et al. v. McGEE. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Harris, Judge.
Action by W. B. Wright and others, constituting the majority of the trustees of Rex Hospital, against J. W. McGee, one of the trustees of Rex Hospital. From a judgment, defendant appeals.
Action dismissed.
This action was begun in the superior court of Wake county under the authority, and pursuant to the provisions, of chapter 102, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1931, which is entitled, "An Act to Authorize Declaratory Judgments."
The plaintiffs and the defendant constitute the trustees of Rex Hospital, a corporation created by the General Assembly of North Carolina. Chapter 0, Private Laws of North Carolina, 1840-41. The said corporation is now the owner of certain property, real and personal, situate in the city of Raleigh, and known as Rex Hospital. The said hospital is operated primarily as a public charity, and is maintained and supported by said corporation with funds derived from certain endowments and donations which have been made to it to enable the said corporation to provide hospital facilities for poor and afflicted persons who reside in the city of Raleigh. These funds are insufficient in amount for the adequate support and maintenance of said hospital, and for this reason are supplemented by funds derived from patrons of said hospital, who are able to pay and who do pay for the services rendered to them by said corporation.
The buildings and equipment of Rex Hospital are now inadequate for the purposes of a modern hospital, and certain repairs and improvements are necessary in order that the corporation may continue to receive patronage which will enable it to provide hospital facilities for poor and afflicted persons residing in the city of Raleigh. The' corporation is without funds to pay for such repairs and improvements, and for that reason has applied to the Public Works Administration, an agency of the government of the United States, for a loan of $250,000 to be expended by the said corporation in making said repairs and improvements, and in enlarging the facilities of Rex Hospital. If the application is approved, and if the loan is made, the corporation will be required by said Public Works Administration to secure the same by a mortgage or deed of trust on all its property, both real and personal, situate in the city of Raleigh, and known as Rex Hospital.
The plaintiffs, who constitute a majority of the trustees of Rex Hospital, contend that the corporation has the power to borrow money for the purpose of repairing and improving its property, and of enlarging the facilities of Rex Hospital, and to secure the payment of money loaned for such purposes by a mortgage or deed of trust on its property. The defendant, who is one of the trustees of Rex Hospital, contends to the contrary. The sole question presented for determination is whether the trustees of Rex Hospital, as a corporate body, have the power to borrow money for the purpose of repairing and improving said hospital, and of enlarging its facilities, and to secure the payment of the same by a mortgage or deed of trust on said hospital.
On the facts alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, the court concluded:
It was thereupon ordered, considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.
...in the matter in dispute. Etheridge v. Leary, 227 N.C. 636, 43 S.E.2d 847; Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., Supra; Wright v. McGee, 206 N.C. 52, 173 S.E. 31; Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Iseley, 203 N.C. 811, 167 S.E. 56; In re Eubanks, 202 N.C. 357, 162 S.E. 769; 16 Am.Jur., Declaratory J......
-
Lide v. Mears
...other party cannot confer jurisdiction on the court to enter a declaratory judgment by failing to demur to the insufficient pleading. Wright v. McGee, supra. compels the observation that the pleadings in the case at bar do not show the existence of a controversy between the parties as to th......
-
Caroline St. Permanent Bldg. Ass'n No. I of Baltimore City v. Sohn, 45.
...71 A.L.R. 1426; 114 A.L.R. 1363; Kariher's Petition, 284 Pa. 455, 131 A. 265; Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274; Wright v. McGee, 206 N. C. 52, 173 S.E. 31; Dobson v. Ocean Ace, etc., Corp, 124 Neb. 652, 247 N.W. 789; Continental Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cochrane, 89 Colo. 462, 4 P.2d Anoth......
-
In Re Reynolds' Guardianship., 309.
...sought. Walker v. Phelps, 202 N. C. 344, 162 S. E. 727; Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Iseley, 203 N. C. 811, 167 S. E. 56; Wright v. McGee. 206 N. C. 52, 173 S. E. 31, filed February 28, 1934. The prayer for judgment was for a suitable allowance according to the allegations of the complaint......