Case Name: J. P. LEWIS v. THE TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN and COMMISSIONERS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1915-11-17
Citations: 170 N.C. 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. P. LEWIS v. THE TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN and COMMISSIONERS.
Judges: Hoke, J., concurs in result. Walker, J., dissents.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
J. P. LEWIS v. THE TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN and COMMISSIONERS.
(Filed 17 November, 1915.)
Municipal Corporations — Paving—Assessments—Legislative Authority — Tote of People.
A municipal corporation may assess tbe owners of property along tbe street for paving tbe street, under legislative authority, without submitting tbe question to a vote of the town. Upon tbe question of notice, estoppel, and injunction, see Marion v. Pilot Mountain, post, 118.
Appeal by defendants from order of Justice, J., continuing tbe injunction to tbe bearing.
• 8. P. Graves and W. F. Garter for plaintiff.
W. R. Badgett, Watson, Buxton & Watson for defendants.

Opinion:
Clare, O. J.
This case is almost identical in every respect witb Marion v. Pilot Mountain, post, 118, to tbe opinion in which we refer as tbe opinion in this case.
It is not necessary that there shall be a town election or that tbe lot owners shall vote in favor of assessing their lots for paving tbe sidewalk and streets in front of their property. This power is conferred by tbe Legislature in tbe amendment to tbe town charter. The plaintiff bad tbe fullest and amplest notice of tbe order to pave bis sidewalk and that if be did not pave it tbe city would do it, and be saw tbe work of paving being done, and during all this time be made no objection either by appearing before tbe town commissioners or otherwise.
Neither did be pay bis assessment before seeking tbe injunction, Eevisal, 2855, nor does it appear that tbe action of tbe board was arbitrary and oppressive or that tbe assessment is excessive. Tbe commissioners of tbe town are vested witb tbe discretionary power to order the paving, and in the absence of oppression or an abuse of discretion the court should have dissolved the restraining order. Rosenthal v. Goldsboro, 149 N. C., 128; Hilliard v. Asheville, 118 N. C., 845; Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N. C., 32; Wilson v. Phillippi, 39 W. Va., 75.
Reversed.
Hoke, J., concurs in result. Walker, J., dissents.