From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Tate

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1869
63 N.C. 308 (N.C. 1869)

Opinion

January Term, 1869.

A county attorney is within the provisions of the XIVth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying certain persons from holding office.

PETITION for a Mandamus, filed in this Court.

Phillips Merrimon, for the petitioner.

Attorney General, contra.


PEARSON, C. J., dissenting.

( Worthy v. Barrett, ante 199, cited and approved.)


The petition alleged that the petitioner had been duly elected Solicitor of the 12th Judicial District, and subsequently had received from General Canby a certificate of that fact; but that upon producing the same to his Honor, Judge Cannon, in the Superior Court of HAYWOOD, and requesting to be qualified, he had refused his application, upon the ground that he was disabled by the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The prayer was for a mandamus, to be directed to his Honor, c., c.

It was admitted that the petitioner had been a county attorney before the recent rebellion, and that during such rebellion he had been an officer in the army of the Confederate States.


The petitioner was a county attorney before the rebellion, and took part in that rebellion by serving in the Confederate army, voluntarily, as we take it. He now seeks to be admitted into the office of Solicitor for the State in the 12th Judicial District.

We are of the opinion that he is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The opinion in the case of Worthy v. Barrett and others, ante 199, is referred to as establishing the rule in this case. The prayer for a mandamus must be refused.

PER CURIAM. Petition dismissed with costs.

NOTE — PEARSON, C. J., dissents from the opinion in Worthy v. Barrett, so far as it includes county attorneys.


Summaries of

In re Tate

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1869
63 N.C. 308 (N.C. 1869)
Case details for

In re Tate

Case Details

Full title:In re WILLIAM L. TATE

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1869

Citations

63 N.C. 308 (N.C. 1869)

Citing Cases

Anderson v. Griswold

For this reason, the cases cited by the district court for the proposition that "states can, and have,…