Burleson v. . Board of Aldermen

156 S.E. 241, 200 N.C. 30, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 11
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 19, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 241 (Burleson v. . Board of Aldermen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burleson v. . Board of Aldermen, 156 S.E. 241, 200 N.C. 30, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 11 (N.C. 1930).

Opinion

Connor, J.

The findings of fact on which the judgment in this action was rendered were made by the judge from admissions in the pleadings, and from the official minutes of the town of Spruce Pine. There were no exceptions to these findings. The only exception on which plaintiffs assign error on their appeal to this Court, was to the judgment. Their contention upon this assignment of error is that the bonds which the defendants propose to issue and to sell were not a binding and legal obligation of the town of Spruce Pine, for the reasons: (1) that said bonds are not for a necessary expense within the meaning of Article VII, section 7 of the Constitution of North Carolina; (2) that the only legislative authority for the issuance of bonds by a municipal corporation for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a public hospital is C. S., 1255; and (3) that the provisions of C. S., 7255, with respect to the issuance of bonds and the levy and collection of a tax, by a municipal corporation, for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a public hospital have not been complied with in the instant case. For these reasons, plaintiffs contend that said bonds will not be a binding and legal obligation of the town of Spruce Pine, for the payment of which defendants will be authorized to levy and collect a tax, annually, notwithstanding their issuance has been approved by a majority of the qualified voters of said town.

It is conceded by defendants that the provisions of C. S., 7255, have not been complied with in the instant case. They contend, however, that the bonds which they propose to issue and to sell are authorized by C. S., 2796, and C. S., 2937; that the provisions of these statutes have been complied with, and that the issuance of said bonds, and the levy and collection of a tax, annually, for the payment of said bonds as they shall become due, was approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the town of Spruce Pine at an election duly called and held in accordance with the provisions of C. S., 2948.

In Armstrong v. Commissioners, 185 N. C., 405, 117 S. E., 388, the defendants insisted on their appeal to this Court that a public hospital should be considered a necessary expense of a municipal corporation, *33 and that for this reason bonds issued by the defendants in that ease for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a public hospital would be valid, although not issued in compliance with the provisions of Article VII, sec. 7, Constitution of North Carolina. In the opinion in that ease, it is said: “We cannot so hold.” In the instant case, therefore, the bonds will not be valid, unless their issuance was authorized by the General Assembly and approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the town of Spruce Pine. Henderson v. City of Wilmington, 191 N. C., 269, 132 S. E., 26, and cases there cited. In that case, speaking of Article VII, section 7, Constitution of North Carolina, it is said: “In analyzing and construing this section in its relation to the sixth section of Article V, the Court has held: (1) that for necessary expenses the municipal authorities may levy a tax up to the constitutional limitation without a vote of the people and without legislative permission; (2) that for necessary expenses they may exceed the constitutional limitation by legislative authority, without a vote of the people; and (3) that for purposes other than necessary expenses a tax cannot be levied either within or in excess of the constitutional limitation except by a 'vote of the people under special legislative authority.” This is a clear and accurate statement of the principles of constitutional law applicable to municipal taxation in this State.

In the instant case, the issuance of the bonds and the levy and collection of the tax was approved by the people, of the town of Spruce Pine— that is, by a majority of the qualified voters of said town. The bonds are, therefore, valid, if their issuance was authorized by statute duly enacted, by the General Assembly.

C. S., 2796, provides that the governing body of a city or town may acquire, establish and maintain a hospital or hospitals. Under the authority of Adams v. City of Durham, 189 N. C., 232, 126 S. E., 611, it may apply for that purpose funds already on hand in the treasury of the city or town; it cannot, however, raise money for that purpose by issuing the bonds of the city or town, or by levying and collecting taxes, without legislative authority and without the approval of a majority of the qualified voters of said city or town, at an election duly called and held therein.

G. S., 2937, provides that a municipality may issue its negotiable bonds for any purpose or purposes for which it may raise or appropriate money, except for current expenses. As a municipal corporation may appropriate money for the purpose of acquiring, establishing and maintaining a hospital, it may issue its bonds, and levy and collect taxes, for that purpose, with the approval of a majority of the qualified voters of the corporation. The requisite legislative authority is conferred by this statute.

*34 In the instant case, the bonds were authorized by an ordinance duly adopted by the board of aldermen of' the town of Spruce Pine, in accordance with the provisions of C. S., 2938. The election at which a majority of the qualified voters, of said town approved the issuance of the bonds and the levy and collection of the tax authorized by the ordinance was duly called and held in accordance with the provisions of C. S., 2948.

C. S., 7255, is not applicable to the bonds which defendants. in the instant case propose to issue and to sell. Noncompliance with its provisions does not affect the validity of said bonds. There was statutory authority for the issuance of the bonds as well as popular approval, as required by the Constitution of this State. There is no error in the judgment.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Maready v. City of Winston-Salem
467 S.E.2d 615 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1996)
Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton
386 S.E.2d 200 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1989)
Cole v. City of Asheville
163 S.E.2d 628 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Horton v. Redevelopment Commission of High Point
131 S.E.2d 464 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Trustees of the Rex Hospital v. Board of Commissioners
79 S.E.2d 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Board of Managers of the James Walker Memorial Hospital v. City of Wilmington
74 S.E.2d 749 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Rider v. Lenoir County
73 S.E.2d 913 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Wickey v. Muscatine County
46 N.W.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1951)
Trustees of Watts Hospital v. Board of Commissioners
58 S.E.2d 696 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Purser v. . Ledbetter
40 S.E.2d 702 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Airport Authority v. . Johnson
36 S.E.2d 803 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority v. Johnson
226 N.C. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Brumley v. . Baxter
36 S.E.2d 281 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Sessions v. . Columbus County
200 S.E. 418 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Sing v. City of Charlotte
195 S.E. 271 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Palmer v. . Haywood County
193 S.E. 668 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Palmer v. County of Haywood
212 N.C. 284 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Martin v. Board of Commissioners
208 N.C. 354 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 S.E. 241, 200 N.C. 30, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burleson-v-board-of-aldermen-nc-1930.