Case ID: nc_3/html/0374-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Macar/, Judge. \n      \n      Hail, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Trustees of the University vs. Foy.
    
    npHE court nov/ gave their opinions in this cause. Locked Judge. — The Assembly cannot by passing an act of Assembly take away property frern a private person, nor a common corporation, much less i'rorp the trustees of the University; that being established by the constitution itself, or what is the same thing, in pursuance of a direction in the constitution. I am therefore of opinion, that the repealing act, 1800, cb. 5, the object of which is to resume the escheated property g "anted to the trustees by the former acts, is repugnant to the constitution, and void.
   Macar/, Judge.

I am of the same opinion»

Hail, Judge.

It concur ';/«;!? ray brethren, that the Assembly Itave iao power to take away tas property of sa individual or <si a common corporation. But as the University is a public 1 think,, Lte all other public mate etc- it is subject rt the eontroul sf the I-egiclaiure ; arid that the Assembly may ?.r~ sign more or less funds for its support at differed times, as they Eiay judge best for the public interest. E am of opinion, therefore* that the repealing act is not unconstitutional1*