Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

183 N.C. 762

111 S.E 161

State v. . Freshwater

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 5, 1922

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1922-04-05

Appeal by defendant from Kerr, J., at February Term, 1922, of Alamance. Defendant was convicted of violation of an ordinance of tbe city of Burlington.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted · Decided 1922-04-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1987

6 state decisions

201922193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Adams, J..

¶1 The ordinance is plainly in conflict with C. S., 2599 and 2618. Section 2601 inhibits the governing body of-a municipal corporation from passing any ordinance contrary to the provisions of the chapter in which these sections are found. But without regard to this statutory inhibition, the conflict would be fatal. Municipal ordinances are ordained for local purposes in the exercise of a delegated legislative function, and must harmonize with the general laws of the State. In case *763 of conflict tbe ordinance must yield to tbe State law. Tbe motion to dismiss tbe action should therefore have been allowed. Washington v. Hammond, 76 N. C., 33; S. v. Langston, 88 N. C., 693; S. v. Brittain, 89 N. C., 574; S. v. Keith, 94 N. C., 933; S. v. Austin, 114 N. C., 855; S. v. McCoy, 116 N. C., 1059; S. v. Black, 150 N. C., 866. On tbe defendant’s motion tbe judgment is reversed, and this will be certified.

¶2 Reversed.

/183/nc/762 · .json · Public domain