{ "id": 8682879, "name": "JOHN H. HANNON v. COMMISSIONERS OF HALIFAX", "name_abbreviation": "Hannon v. Commissioners of Halifax", "decision_date": "1883-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "123", "last_page": "125", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "89 N.C. 123" } ], "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": "87 N. C., 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8687871 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/87/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. C., 880", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 N. C., 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682130, 6799291 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/60/0081-01", "/nc/60/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. C., 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278280 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/71/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 N. C., 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2085565 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/69/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N. C., 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8687871 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/87/0168-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 4163, "ocr_confidence": 0.48, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.229454782563219e-07, "percentile": 0.6053082631458436 }, "sha256": "878de1df8d64f119460669b5e1b5381a8a94e4bc26bc5655dfbaee4b111c9475", "simhash": "1:bf174a1440044d7c", "word_count": 721 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:46.148190+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHN H. HANNON v. COMMISSIONERS OF HALIFAX." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SMITH, C. J.\nAfter the adjudication in the superior court in the action instituted by the plaintiff\u2019 against the incumbent of the office of register of deeds, amoving him therefrom, and declaring the plaintiff entitled thereto, and from which the defendant had appealed to this court, the plaintiff laid a copy of the record of the judgment before the county commissioners, and offered to take the oath and give the bond required by law, in order to his induction. The commissioners refused to act in the premises, upon the ground that the contest in regard to the office was still pending, and the right of the plaintiff yet undetermined .\nThe plaintiff' thereupon brought this action against them, and in his complaint demands a writ of mandamus to compel them to admit him to the office.\nUpon the hearing of the application, Plis Honor declined to order the issue of the writ, and from this ruling the plaintiff appeals. . ^\nThe only question before us is as to the effect of the appeal upon the judgment in the court below, and whether thereby all further proceedings for its enforcement are suspended, or it remains still in force and warrants the present application.\nThe action to recover the usurped office, and to which this is subsidiary, seems not to be provided for in the several sections of the Code (304, 305, 306 and 307), which prescribe the undertaking to be given, and the acts to be done, in order that the appeal shall operate as a supersedeas in the case.\nExecution is stayed on compliance with the conditions mentioned, when the judgment directs the payment of money (\u00a7304); or the assignment or delivery of documents or personal property (\u00a7305); or the execution of a conveyance or other instrument (\u00a7306); or the sale or delivery of possession of real property (\u00a7307). The judgment in a proceeding to recover possession of an usurped office, is self-executing, and operates itself as ouster of the defendant, requiring no further and final process to render it effectual.\nIt is not, therefore, embraced in any of the recited clauses, and has removed the defendant notwithstanding his appeal; in which case, mandamus is the appropriate remedy against the commissioners refusing to act upon the application for admission, or the judgment is vacated or suspended by the appeal.\nUnder the former practice every appeal bond was to secure the fruits in full of the final judgment in the appellate court to the appellee, in case it was there affirmed, and the cause was itself removed to the appellate court. So it has been repeatedly held under the system provided in the Code. Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C., 81; Isler v. Brown, Ib., 125; Perry v. Tupper, 71 N. C., 380; Skinner v. Bland, 87 N. C., 168.\nWe do not feel at liberty to depart from these authorities, and especially in a proceeding in regard to which the Code is silent upon the point; and in accordance with them, the commisioners were not in default in declining to admit the plaintiff to the office pendente lite, and the suit for the peremptory mandate is premature.\nWe assume that the commissioners when apprised of the decision of this court in the action to test the conflicting claims of the parties to the office, will jiroceed at once to pass upon the plaintiff\u2019s bond and permit him to qualify according to law.\nNo error. Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "SMITH, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. Mullen & Moore, Day & Zollicoffer and J. E. O'Hara, for plaintiff.", "Messrs. Walter Ciarle and i?. 0. Burton, Jr., for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN H. HANNON v. COMMISSIONERS OF HALIFAX.\nMandamus \u2014 Quo Warranto, appeal in and effect of.\nA mandamus will not lie to induct ono into office, during the pendency of an appeal in quo warranto between the same parties. The judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff is suspended by the appeal and the title to the office undetermined.\n(Bledsoe v. Nixon, 60 N. C., 81; Isler v. Brown, lb., 125; Perry v. Tapper, 71 N. C., 880; Skinner v. Bland, 87 N. C., 168, cited and approved).\nCivil Action in which application is made for the writ of mandamus, heard at Chambers in Halifax on the 10th of May, 1883, before Philips, J.\nThe application for the writ was refused, and the plaintiff appealed.\nMessrs. Mullen & Moore, Day & Zollicoffer and J. E. O'Hara, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Walter Ciarle and i?. 0. Burton, Jr., for defendants." }, "file_name": "0123-01", "first_page_order": 139, "last_page_order": 141 }