{ "id": 8621702, "name": "J. FURMAN BROADWAY, ANNIE B. BROADWAY, BOYD L. CHEEK, GERALDINE CHEEK, LEON BRAMMER and CLAUDIA B. BRAMMER v. THE TOWN OF ASHEBORO", "name_abbreviation": "Broadway v. Town of Asheboro", "decision_date": "1959-04-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "232", "last_page": "234", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 N.C. 232" } ], "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": "109 S.E. 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N.C. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656176 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630851 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 105", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11301933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616732 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621351 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0706-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 773", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621912 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0773-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 321, "char_count": 4698, "ocr_confidence": 0.43, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.890055519413575e-07, "percentile": 0.7288807185283775 }, "sha256": "e4e630dc01ef4b4d7b1e91ae211b90996c78462d1658f913ebf98e753c636c2b", "simhash": "1:b43246dc474ebb66", "word_count": 762 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:40.326881+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. FURMAN BROADWAY, ANNIE B. BROADWAY, BOYD L. CHEEK, GERALDINE CHEEK, LEON BRAMMER and CLAUDIA B. BRAMMER v. THE TOWN OF ASHEBORO." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "RodmaN, J.\nPlaintiffs appeal from an -oa'der sustaining -a demurrer ore tenus for that the -complaint fails to .state a icause of action. Plaintiffs -pray that .street paving assessments levied -against their properties be declared -invalid. As the basis for tbe relief sought they aillege: the City Clerk of Asheboro, on 13 October 1953, delivered to one Lanxpihere -a blank petition asking for the paving of Hast Presnell Street from North Elm Street to Vance Street, a copy of which petition, marked Exhibit A, is annexed to the complaint; tihe frontage on Presnell Street between Elm -and Yance is 3196.82 feet and is owned by more than thirty property owners; when this petition was lodged with the Oammiis-sioners -of the town it had \u201conly -one valid -signature\u201d and that property -owner owned only 636.99 feet fronting on Presnell Street; on 17 January 1957 plaintiffs were notified paving assessments had been made against their property; in response to the notice, plaintiffs appeared before the Commissioners and \u201cpresented a protest of said illegal assessment on tire grounds that the petition was invalid on its face and void from the beginning\u201d; notwithstanding the protests, the assessments were approved .and confirmed.\nExhibit A attached to the complaint is a form of petition asking the Commissioners of Asheboro to pave East Presnell Street from North Elm to Vance and assess 100% of the cost of the work against abutting property owners pursuant to c. 56, P.L. 1915 (G.S. 160-78 et seq.) It does not purport to contain any signatures or to show any frontage.\nStreet improvement proceedings, dependent on .the assessment of abutting properties, .are initiated by property owners. A majority of the owners, owning a majority of the front footage, must file a petition with city officials requesting the improvement. Upon the filing of such petition it becomes the duty of the City Clerk to investigate the facts and report the result of his investigation to the Commissioners. The determination of the governing body is final and conclusive. G.S. 160-82. A property owner is entitled to a hearing, G.S. 160-88 and to appeal 'the action of the Commissioners approving the assessment, G.S. 160-89.\nHere the complaint does not allege that the .assessment was based on the .petition bearing the signature of G. P. Pritchard. If it be 'asserted that is a fair inference to be drawn from the allegation of the complaint, it is equally apparent from the allegations that the petition bore other signatures since the allegation iis that Pritchard\u2019s was the \u201conly valid\u201d signature. What other signatures appeared .and what frontage they owned is not alleged. Whether these other signatures were valid or invalid depends on facts not alleged. The asserted invalidity is a mere conclusion of the pleader.\nBy statute, G.S. 1-122, the complaint must contain \u201ca plain and concise statement of the facts constituting -a cause of action . . .\u201d Where the complaint merely alleges conclusions and not facts, it fails to state a cause of action and is demurrable. G.S. 1-127(6). Little v. Oil Corp., 249 N.C. 773; Skipper v. Cheatham, 249 N.C. 706; Shives v. Sample, 238 N.C. 724, 79 S.E. 2d 193.\nThe assessment is presumed valid. Asheboro v. Miller, 220 N.C. 298, 17 S.E. 2d 105; Gallimore v. Thomasville, 191 N.C. 648, 132 S.E. 657; Anderson v. Albemarle, 182 N.C. 434, 109 S.E. 262.\nThe demurrer was sustained. The action was not dismissed. Plaintiffs may now move to amend and state facts rather than conclusions G.S. 1-131.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "RodmaN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ottway Burton and Don Davis for plaintiff, appellants.", "Archie L. Smith for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. FURMAN BROADWAY, ANNIE B. BROADWAY, BOYD L. CHEEK, GERALDINE CHEEK, LEON BRAMMER and CLAUDIA B. BRAMMER v. THE TOWN OF ASHEBORO.\n(Filed 29 April, 1959.)\n1. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 33\u2014\nIn an action to have paving assessments levied against plaintiffs\u2019 property declared invalid, a complaint alleging that only one of the signatures of abutting property owners to -the petition for improvements iwas valid, without alleging that the -assessment was based on the petition, what -other signatures appeared on the petition or facts supporting the condusion that the other signatures were invalid, is insufficient to state a cause of action, anid demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained. G.S. 160-78, et seq.\n3. Pleadings \u00a7 3a\u2014\nWhere a complaint merely alleges conclusions and not the facte supporting the asserted conclusions, it fails to state a cause of action and is demurrable. G.S. 1-127(6).\n3. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 33\u2014\nAssessments for public improvements are presumed valid.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Johnston, J., November 1958 Term of RANDOLPH.\nOttway Burton and Don Davis for plaintiff, appellants.\nArchie L. Smith for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0232-01", "first_page_order": 272, "last_page_order": 274 }