# State Ex Rel. Dalby v. Hancock

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · November 28, 1899 · 125 N.C. 325

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812716

## Case

- **Full name:** State on the Relation of A. J. Dalby, G. T. Sikes and J. A. Fuller v. F. W. Hancock, G. B. Royster and James H. Webb.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 28, 1899
- **Citations:** 125 N.C. 325; 34 S.E. 516; 1899 N.C. LEXIS 210
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clark
- **Judges:** Faiecuott-I, Clark, Montgomery, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812716

## Opinion text

Clark, <T.,
dissents as to Dalby and Sykes for reasons given in the dissenting opinions in Greene v. Owens, Galtis v. Griffin and Abbott v. Beddingfield, at this term.
I concur in the result as to the plaintiff Fuller. It is a fact, found by consent, that the plaintiff Fuller “is not a citizen or resident of Granville County.” It is not a question as to the validity of the acts of such a one while in office and until his seat is vacated, and the authorities as to the validity of the acts of a de facto officer have no application. But, here, the plaintiff is out; he is seeking to get in.; and it appears without controversy that a state of facts exists which if he were in would eo inslwnbi vacate his office. I do not think the Court can oust the defendant to put him in. Why admit him only to turn him out again ? He must recover on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s title, and he has shown he is not entitled.
MONTGOMERY and Douglas, J.J., concur in the result reached by the Court in this case, but do not in the statement of the case in the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812716. Public record. Not legal advice.