{
  "id": 8616581,
  "name": "CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. FORSYTH COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Winston-Salem v. Forsyth County",
  "decision_date": "1940-06-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "704",
  "last_page": "704",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 704"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "159 S. E., 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623042
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629717
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S. E., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221321
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0751-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2250,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0084448014282267e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5414439220201641
    },
    "sha256": "5c1abce223c7e8c68c1661cbc431c348bb7c3f465691cf985c5777f5c818088f",
    "simhash": "1:1f9def068117c419",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. FORSYTH COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe judgment will be affirmed on authority of wbat was said in Benson v. Johnston County, 209 N. C., 751, 185 S. E., 6, and Warrenton v. Warren County, 215 N. C., 342, 2 S. E. (2d), 463. Tbe divergent views of tbe law upon tbe subject were fully set forth in these cases, \u201cand it is not deemed necessary to beat tbe same old bush with tbe same old stick to run out tbe same old rabbit for another chase,\u201d as was graphically expressed by tbe late Justice Brogden in Meece v. Credit Co., 201 N. C., 139, 159 S. E., 17.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manly, Hendren \u25a0& Womble, I. F. Carlyle, and W. F. Womble for plaintiff.",
      "Fred S. Hutchins and H. Bryce Parker for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. FORSYTH COUNTY.\n(Filed 8 June, 1940.)\nTaxation \u00a7 19\u2014\nImproved and unimproved property bought in by a municipality to protect its tax and street assessment liens, and held by it solely for tbe purpose of favorable resale, tbe improved property being rented out, is held subject to ad valorem taxes levied by tbe county in wbicb tbe property is situated.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Nettles, J., at April Term, 1940, of Eobsyth.\nCivil action to recover ad valorem taxes paid under protest, and alleged to bave been wrongfully and illegally collected.\nA jury trial was waived and tbe matter submitted to tbe court under stipulation of tbe parties.\nTbe city of \"Winston-Salem, in order to protect its tax and street assessment liens, bas from time to time during tbe past ten years purchased at sucb foreclosure sales a number of-lots or pieces of real estate, some of wbicb are improved and rented out; and others are unimproved and vacant. All are held by tbe city awaiting favorable resale. None is expected to be used for a public purpose, unless tbe bolding of it for resale is for a public purpose within tbe meaning of tbe law.\nTaxes were levied against tbe properties by Forsyth County for tbe years 1937 and 1938, amounting in tbe aggregate, with penalties, to $1,733.03. Payments were made under protest. Demand for refund duly filed, and this suit is to recover back tbe taxes on tbe ground that the properties are exempt by law from tbe payment of taxes to Forsyth County.\nFrom judgment denying recovery or refund of tbe taxes, this appeal is prosecuted.\nManly, Hendren \u25a0& Womble, I. F. Carlyle, and W. F. Womble for plaintiff.\nFred S. Hutchins and H. Bryce Parker for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0704-01",
  "first_page_order": 770,
  "last_page_order": 770
}