Drainage District v. Cahoon

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Drainage District

    121 S.E.2d 599 (N.C. 1961)

    Hence no assessment could be levied either for original construction or for cost of maintenance on lands beyond the boundaries. The right to levy such an assessment on lands excluded from the district was squarely presented and decided adversely to the contention of appellant more than thirty years ago. Drainage District v. Cahoon, 193 N.C. 326, 137 S.E. 185. The correctness of that decision has not heretofore been challenged. The conclusion reached in the Cahoon case accords with decisions of other courts in cases involving the annexation of territory.

  2. Deal v. Sanitary District

    95 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 1956)   Cited 8 times

    " Defendants stress this excerpt from the opinion. While the quoted excerpt, standing alone, lends some support to defendants' contention, it must be regarded as dicta; for the quotation from Drainage District v. Cahoon, 193 N.C. 326, 137 S.E. 185, shows plainly that the proposition stated relates to a special assessment district whereas the decision in Sanitary District v. Prudden, supra, was predicated squarely on the proposition that the Druid Hills Sanitary District was not a special assessment district. The required public hearing (G.S. 130-35) contemplates that every interested person has a right to be heard by the State Board of Health before it determines whether it deems it advisable to create and establish a sanitary district in compliance with the request of the approved Jurisdictional petition.

  3. Spence v. Granger

    167 S.E. 805 (N.C. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    The whole matter remains in the control of the court. It is not necessary, however, to keep such cases on the docket, but they can be brought forward from time to time, upon notice to the parties, upon supplementary petition filed therein, and further decrees made to conform to the exigencies and changes which may arise. . . . These proceedings are not highly technical, but are intended to be inexpensive and to be moulded from time to time, by the orders of the court, as may best promote the beneficial results contemplated by the statute." Drainage District v. Cahoon, 193 N.C. 326. In the present case there was no notice of the supplemental order assessing against each landowner an increase of 40 per cent over the former assessment.

  4. Carawan v. Barnett

    197 N.C. 511 (N.C. 1929)   Cited 8 times
    In Carawan v. Barnett, 197 N.C. 511, it is held an assessment made upon adjoining land for a street improvement by a town is a charge upon the land constituting a lien superior to all others, C. S., 2713, and not enforceable against the personalty or other lands of the owner, and when the owner of land has been thus assessed, payable in installments, C. S., 2716, and he subsequently dies, it is not a debt of the deceased payable by his personal representative, but a charge against the land itself.

    In R. R. v. Ahoskie, 192 N.C. at pp. 259-60, it is said: "An assessment `as distinguished from other kinds of taxation, are those special and local impositions upon the property in the immediate vicinity of municipal improvements which are necessary to pay for the improvement, and are laid with reference to the special benefit which the property is supposed to have derived therefrom.' (Black's Law Dictionary); Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N.C. 32." Goode v. Asheville, 193 N.C. 134; Drainage District v. Cahoon, 193 N.C. 326. In Coble v. Dick, 194 N.C. 732, it is held — that the assessment is an encumbrance as contemplated or included in the warranty in a deed containing full covenants and warranties against all encumbrances whatsoever.

  5. In re Lyon Swamp Drainage District

    95 S.E. 485 (N.C. 1918)   Cited 4 times

    Affirmed. Cited: Oden v. Bell, 185 N.C. 404; Drainage District v. Cahoon, 193 N.C. 330; Drainage District v. Bordeaux, 193 N.C. 628; In re Drainage District, 228 N.C. 249.

  6. Banks v. Lane

    86 S.E. 713 (N.C. 1915)   Cited 13 times
    In Banks v. Lane, 170 N.C. 14, it was held that the landowner, at the time of the establishment of the drainage district, was the only necessary party to the proceedings, and that lien holders and mortgage holders need not be made parties, and that the establishment of the drainage district created the presumption that the land would be benefited by the drainage district more than the (559) burdens assessed against it for such purposes.

    Cited: Banks v. Lane, 171 N.C. 505 (Petition to rehear denied); Leary v. Comrs., 172 N.C. 274 (4f); Lumber Co. v. Comrs., 173 N.C. 119 (1l, 2l, 4l); Lumber Co. v. Comrs., 173 N.C. 121 (j); Comrs. v. Spencer, 174 N.C. 38 (p); Taylor v. Comrs., 176 N.C. 219, 225 (Same case on motion in the original cause. p); Pate v. Banks, 178 N.C. 140, 141 (2f); Farms Co. v. Comrs., 178 N.C. 667, 668 (1f, 2f); Caviness v. Hunt, 180 N.C. 386 (4f); O'Neal v. Mann, 193 N.C. 158 (4f); Drainage District v. Cahoon, 193 N.C. 330 (p); Spence v. Granger, 207 N.C. 21 (1l, 2l); Newton v. Chason, 225 N.C. 207 (4f). (18)