Court Opinion

ID: 9567034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:47:20.245026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:03.113744
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing

Per Curiam:

Respondent, conceding that the original petition attacked only sec. 8433, N.C.L.1929, as amended, being sec. 5 of “An Act in relation to courts of record, to prevent unnecessary delay in rendering judicial decisions,” etc., now asserts that our order granting the precise relief prayed for, leaves in doubt the validity of the remaining seven sections of the entire act. He calls our attention to the fact that sec. 2 of the act, being sec. 8430, N.C.L.1929, requires, among other things, that each of the supreme court justices, before receiving any monthly salary, shall file in his office an affidavit reciting *330that no case has been assigned to him for preparation of opinion for more than ninety days, etc.; that we have not struck down said sec. 2 and that the respondent state controller needs the aid of this court as a guide to his official duties under sec. 2 and other sections of the act.
We think it clear from our opinion that sec. 2 of the act, being sec. 8430, N.C.L.1929, is subject to the same infirmities as sec. 5 (sec. 8433, N.C.L.1929) and we so hold. No official duties of the state controller are affected by any of the remaining six sections,- and further consideration of such sections- would be unwarranted in this proceeding.
Rehearing denied.