Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Leath v. . Summers

Leath v. . Summers, 25 N.C. 108 (N.C. 1842)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1842-12-05
Topic
general

Daniel, J. This was a petition to turn a road. The defendants moved the court to dismiss it, because there was no allegation in it, that the new road was necessary, or would be more useful to the public, The court, for this reason, dismissed the petition, and the petitioners appealed. We are of opinion that the judgment of the court was correct. By the 1st section of the act, Rev. iSt. c. 104, s. 1, the County Court has power to order the laying out of public roads, when necessary; and to alter roads as often as occasion shall require, so as to make them more useful.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leath v. . Summers. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
LEATHv. SUMMERS,25 N.C. 108(1842)
FREEMAN LEATH AND OTHERSv. JACOB SUMMERS AND OTHERS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(December Term, 1842.)
In a petition to turn or change a public road, it must be alleged that the new road is necessary, or would be more useful to the public — otherwise the petition will be dismissed.
APPEAL fromSettle, J., Fall Term, 1842, of CASWELL.

This was a petition to alter a public road between certain (109)terminidesignated in the petition, and was brought up by appeal to the Superior Court. The petitioners merely prayed for an alteration of the road without assigning any reasons therefore. A copy of the petition had been served on the defendant, who appeared and opposed it. At the hearing the counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the petition: 1st, for the want of sufficient matter set forth in the petition to enable the Court to found any decree thereon; 2d, because of a former decree on the same subject matter between these parties in the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of Caswell, at April Term, 1841; and, in support of the latter petition, he produced a petition and the records of the County Court, showing a hearing of the petition at April Term aforesaid, upon the testimony of witness and argument of counsel, and a decree dismissing the said petition at the cost of the petitioners. His Honor being of opinion with the petitioners upon the latter question, refused the motion to dismiss upon that ground; but, being satisfied that the petition was so defective as not to authorize any decree, directed the same to be dismissed at the costs of the petitioners. From this decree the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
W. H. Haywood, for the petitioners.Morehead, for the defendant.
DANIEL, J.
This was a petition to turn a road. The defendants moved the Court to dismiss it because there was no allegation in it, that the new road was necessary, or would be more useful to the public. The Court, for this reason, dismissed the petition, and the petitioners appealed. We are of opinion that the judgment of the Court was correct. By Rev. Stat., ch. 104, sec. 1, the County Court has power to order the laying out of public roads,when necessary;and to alter roads as often as occasion shall require, so as to make themmore useful. The second section of the said act, after pointing out the mode of proceeding (110) in petitions of this kind, authorizes the County Court "to hear the allegations set forth in the said petition"; and, if sufficient reasons be shown, the Court has power to order the laying out or discontinuance of the said road, as the case may be. This petition has no general nor particular allegation in it, that the road sought to bePage 81established, would either be necessary or useful to the public. The Court, therefore, had no power to hear witnesses to prove anything, except the allegations set forth in the petition; and these allegations ought to be such as to make a proper case, coming within the meaning of the act of Assembly. The petitioners did not move to amend their petition.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.Cited: Shoffner v. Fogleman,44 N.C. 282.

(111)