Case Name: State on the relation of F. N. GATTIS and O. T. EDWARDS v. J. M. GRIFFIN, OSTIA PERRY and J. M. EDWARDS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1899-11-28
Citations: 125 N.C. 332
Docket Number: 
Parties: State on the relation of F. N. GATTIS and O. T. EDWARDS v. J. M. GRIFFIN, OSTIA PERRY and J. M. EDWARDS.
Judges: EatRoloth, 0. J., writes the opinion of the Court.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 332–336

Head Matter:
State on the relation of F. N. GATTIS and O. T. EDWARDS v. J. M. GRIFFIN, OSTIA PERRY and J. M. EDWARDS.
(Decided November 28, 1899.)
Quo Warranto — Title to Office — County Board of Education, Act J897j Chap. 108 — Oownty Board of School Directors, Act 1899, Chap. 7SB.
1. When an office is abolished, out and out, the officer is left without an official habitation; but when the office is continued, with the same and even additional duties, although under a different name of the office, the original owner is entitled to it as his property.
2. The Act of 1897, chap. 108, is not repealed but only amended by the Acts of 1899.
Civil ActioN in the natui*e of quo warmnto to try the title to the office of County Board of School Directors for Chatham County, heard upon the pleadings by Brown, J., at September Term, 3 899, of Chatham Superior Court.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were legally entitled to the office of County Board of Education of Chatham County, under Act 1897, chap. 108, but were wrongfully ousted by the defendants claiming to act as the County Board of School Directors for the county, under Acts of 1899, chaps. 374 and 732. That the legislation of 1899 did not repeal the legislation of 1897 upon the subject, but was merely amenda-tory thereof, and that they are still entitled to their office upon one or the other of the two Boards.
The answer relies upon the authority of the Acts of 1899, chaps. 374 and 732, and their election thereunder by the Legislature, for their right to the office of County Board of School Directors for Chatham County.
His Honor, upon the pleadings, rendered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
Mr. J. A. Giles, for appellants.
Messrs. II. A. London, and Womack & Hayes, for appel-lees.
EatRoloth, 0. J., writes the opinion of the Court.
Clark, J., writes dissenting opinion.

Opinion:
Eairclotii, C. J.
The facts in this case present the same question as that in Dalby v. Hancock, at this term, and this must be governed by the same principle announced in that case. The same legislative acts are relied upon by the defendants.
We were favored with an argument to the effect that the plaintiffs have no property in the office of the Board of Education, because the Board is a public corporation, and, therefore, under the control of the Legislature, and Mills v. Williams, 33 N. C., 558, was cited in its support. In that case the facts were: That the Legislature in 1846 established a new county by the name Pollc. The county officers were elected and entered on the duties of their respective offices, including the sheriff. Before their terms expired, the Legislature repealed the act establishing the county, and, after the repealing act, the sheriff arrested the plaintiff under process, and was sued for an assault, the sheriff insisting that the repeal was unconstitutional and that his office still continued. The Court held that the county was a corporation,. established by the Legislature for the benefit of tire public, and that there was no feature of a contract in it, as there is in private corporations chartered by the Legislature. It follows as a sequence that when the county was destroyed or abolished by the repealing act, all the county offices went with it, as they were merely incidental jmovisions for the public welfare. This is the doctrine of all the cases from Hoke v. Henderson to the present time i. e., when the office is abolished, out and out, the officer is left without an official habitation, but when the office is continued with the same duties and even some additional duties although under a different name of the office, the original owner of the office is entitled to it as his property. In the case before us, the act establishing the office is not repealed but only amended, and therein the analogy fails.
Reversed.