Opinion

Moore v. . Bell

  • 191 N.C. 305
  • 131 S.E. 724
  • 1926 N.C. LEXIS 61
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Mar 3, 1926
Status
Published
Author
Clarkson
On the bench
Clarkson, Connor
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.7%

The opinion

Clarkson, J.,

concurring: I concur in the main opinion on the sole ground that the validity of a statute enacted by the General Assembly, declaring certain acts therein defined to be unlawful and imposing punishment therefor, as crimes, that no injunction or equitable proceeding will lie. The State, or a State agency, county or municipality cannot be enjoined from executing its criminal laws. Remedy is never given in equity when it can be obtained by law. To have presented to this Court the constitutionality of the Currituck County Game Law, it must appear that the party who violated the provision of the law was duly charged with the crime, convicted and appeal taken to this Court. Cohen v. Comrs., 77 N. C., 2 ; Busbee v. Lewis, 85 N. C., 332 ; Wardens v. Washington, 109 N. C., 21 ; Scott v. Smith, 121 N. C., 94 ; Paul v. Washington, 134 N. C., 363 ; Hargett v. Bell, 134 N. C., 395 ; S. v. R. R., 145 N. C., 521 ; Thompson v. Lumberton, 182 N. C., 260 ; Turner v. New Bern, 187 N. C., 548 .

For the reasons given, the constitutionality of the Currituck County Game Law is not passed upon in the present opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.