37 S.E. 136 | N.C. | 1900
Lead Opinion
This was an action for tort. Upon demurrer ore tenús it was properly dismissed, both as to the defendants, the county commissioners of Johnston, officially as representing the county, and as to them individually. In the latter aspect, the complaint sets out no allegations of fact which amount to a cause of action against them personally for neglect of duty, under Code, see. 731, but the averments are against the county commissioners in their corporate capacity, i. e., against the county, for their failure to establish hospitals, under Code, sec. 707 (22). .It is held by an unbroken line of decisions, and reiterated at last term (Prich
No error.
Lead Opinion
MONTGOMERY and DOUGLAS, JJ., concur in the result, but not in the opinion.
This was an action for tort. Upon demurrerore tenus it was properly dismissed, both as to the defendants, the county commissioners of Johnston, officially as representing the county, and as to them individually. In the latter aspect, the complaint sets out no allegations of fact which amount to a cause of action against them personally for neglect of duty, under Code, sec. 711, but the averments are against the county commissioners in their corporate capacity, i. e., against the county, for their failure to establish hospitals, under Code, sec. 707 (22). It is held by an unbroken line of decisions, and reiterated at last term (Prichard v. Commissioners,
No error. *62
Concurrence Opinion
We concur in the result, but not in the opinion, as we do not think that the facts of this case or the opinion in the Prichard case justify the opinion.