Summary
In Perry v. Whitaker, 71 N.C. 477, an election to ascertain the will of the electors as representing the body of which they form a part, in reference to a prohibition of the sale of spirituous liquors in the township, was declared void "for the reason that a large number of the citizens of the city were not allowed to vote, for the reason that they were not registered and no opportunity was offered them to vote."
Summary of this case from DeBerry v. NicholsonOpinion
(June Term, 1874.)
A citizen of a township, representing a class, may bring an action for the purpose of testing the validity of a certain township election; and another citizen, for himself and others of the same class, upon the same principle, are allowed to come in and defend such action.
This is the same as the preceding case, the facts of which are therein fully stated. Upon the defendant, Ballard, being permitted by his Honor to defend, the plaintiffs appealed.
Busbee Busbee and Fuller Ashe, for appellants.
Battle Son, Smith Strong, and Pace, Contra.
If one citizen of a township can come in for a class to oppose the certifying of a township vote upon the ground of the irregularity of the election, there can be no reason why another (478) citizen should not be allowed to maintain the regularity of the election, which is the only question in this case.
This is a branch of a case between the same parties at this term which is referred to for particulars.
There is no error. Let this be certified.
PER CURIAM. Order affirmed.
Cited: Smith v. Wilmington, 98 N.C. 353; DeBerry v. Nicholson, 102 N.C. 471; Jones v. Comrs., 107 N.C. 251; Barbee v. Comrs. of Wake, 210 N.C. 719.