Title: City of Durham v. Bates
Citation: 160 S.E.2d 60, 273 N.C. 336
Docket Number: 770
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 1968

160 S.E.2d 60 (1968) 273 N.C. 336 CITY OF DURHAM v. Thurston BATES and wife, Dora Bates. No. 770. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 20, 1968. *61 Claude V. Jones and S. F. Gantt, Durham, for plaintiff appellee. Nathaniel L. Belcher, George L. Bumpass, E. R. Avant, Durham, and Franklin M. Moore, Laurinburg, for defendant appellants. Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Deputy Atty. Gen. Harrison Lewis, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Andrew H. McDaniel, for amici curiae on Behalf of The State Highway Commission. BRANCH, Justice. Defendants attack the constitutionality of Chapter 136, Article 9, and contend that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the order putting plaintiff in possession of the property. They also contend that there was error in that plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of a portion of Chapter 136, Article 9, to wit, G.S. § 136-104. Defendants petitioned to withdraw the sum of $8,500.00 from the sum of $8,650.00 which plaintiff deposited with the clerk of superior court of Durham County as estimated compensation due defendants for the taking of their property. By order dated 26 May 1967 Judge Leo Carr ordered "that the Clerk of Superior Court, Durham County pay to the defendants, Thurston Bates and wife, Dora Bates the sum of EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($8,500.00) DOLLARS of the sum on deposit with said Clerk, as a credit against just compensation without prejudice to further proceedings in the cause to determine just compensation as permitted under G. S. Chapter 136, Article 9, Section 105." In the case of Convent of Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill v. City of Winston-Salem, 243 N.C. 316, 90 S.E.2d 879, Winborne, J. (later C. J.), speaking for the Court, stated: The constitutionality of G.S. § 116-149 (b) was attacked by a petitioner who was seeking scholarship benefits provided by said statute in the case of Ramsey v. North Carolina Veterans Commission, 261 N.C. 645, 135 S.E.2d 659. The superior court denied relief to the petitioner, and in affirming the action of the superior court, this Court stated: "* * * she may not question the constitutionality of the Act upon which she bases her claim." 6 Nichols on Eminent Domain, Third Edition, § 28.321(2), p. 682, states: Upon accepting the benefits under the statute, defendants are precluded from attacking the statute, the jurisdiction of the court to enter the order putting plaintiff in possession of the property, or the failure of the plaintiff to strictly comply with the provisions of the statute which defendants attack. Defendants may proceed in the cause to determine just compensation under G. S. Chapter 136, Article 9. This cause is remanded to the superior court of Durham County for a determination of just compensation under provisions of G. S. Chapter 136, Article 9. Remanded. HUSKINS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.