State Ex Rel. Committee on Grievances of the North Carolina Bar Ass'n v. Strickland

*620 BbogdeN, J. Tbis cause was disposed of by tbe opinion of tbe Court reported in 200 N. C., at page 630. Tbe costs of tbe action were taxed against Mecklenburg County. Thereupon Mecklenburg County duly filed in tbis Court a motion to retax tbe costs upon tbe theory that tbe county was not a party to tbe action, and consequently, not liable for costs. A disbarment proceeding is regulated by C. S., 208, el seq. C. S., 214, provides that “tbe proceedings must be conducted in tbe name of tbe State, and in all cases tbe solicitor of tbe district shall appear and prosecute tbe accusation and be responsible for tbe faithful discharge of tbe duties required of him under tbis article, and be may be assisted by other counsel.” O. S., 1236, provides that “in all civil actions prosecuted in tbe name of tbe State, by an officer duly authorized for that purpose, tbe State shall be liable for costs in tbe same cases and to tbe same extent as private parties.” C. S., 1236, was originally Code, section 536, and was construed in Blount v. Simmons, 119 N. C., 50. Tbe Court said: “We find nothing in tbe Constitution depriving tbe Legislature of power to enact Code, sec. 536, and we do not think it will impair tbe sovereign character of tbe State to meet its just liabilities, whether in tbe form of costs or otherwise.” Tbe Court is of tbe opinion that tbe ease of Blount v. Simmons, supra, is decisive upon tbe question of costs, and it is ordered and adjudged that tbe costs be taxed against tbe State of North Carolina, and tbe order heretofore issued taxing tbe costs against Mecklenburg County is hereby vacated.