Haller v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kiser v. Kiser (N.C. 1989)
- In re Annexation Ordinance Adopted by the City of Charlotte (N.C. 1974)
- Guess v. Parrott (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)
- Kaperonis v. North Carolina State Highway Commission (N.C. 1963)
- In re Annexation Ordinances Nos. 866-870, Etc. (N.C. 1961)
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Great Southern Trucking Co. (N.C. 1943)
- State Ex Rel. Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Barber (N.C. 1941)
- Jenkins v. American Enka Corp. (4th Cir. 1938)
- Lee v. . American Enka Corp. (N.C. 1937)
- Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co. (N.C. 1933)
- Heavner v. Town of Lincolnton (N.C. 1932)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The appellant contends that tbe award of the Industrial Commission should be set aside for two reasons: (1) The Workmen’s Compensation Act (P. L. 1929, ch. 120) is in conflict with the Constitution, Article YU, sec. 7, which provides that “no county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall contract any debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officer of the same except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein”; (2) the act deprives, the defendant of its right to a trial by jury, in contravention of Article I, section 19, which provides that “in all controversies at law respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.”
The first objection raises an academic question. There is nothing in the record showing that the board of commissioners of Mecklenburg County has attempted to levy a tax or to contract a debt, or to pledge its faith, or to loan its credit in breach of Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution. A question of this importance should be considered • and determined upon a full disclosure of all facts in a proceeding to which the board is made a party and given an opportunity to be heard.
The second ground of objection is without merit. The State has waived its sovereignty as to the claim of an injured employee, and neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions has the right to reject the provision of sections 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 of the Compensation Law, or any of its provisions relative to payment and acceptance of compensation. Section 8. Baker v. State, ante, 236; Moore v. State, ante, 300. Under this act trial by jury is not a constitutional right. McInnish v. Board of Education, 187 N. C., 494; Groves v. Ware, 182 N. C., 553; Commissioners v. George, ibid., 415; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S., 219, 61 Law Ed., 685. Judgment
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.