Cobb v. Corp. of Elizabeth City

75 N.C. 1
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 75 N.C. 1 (Cobb v. Corp. of Elizabeth City) 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
Cobb v. Corp. of Elizabeth City, 75 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1876).

Opinion

Rodman, J.

1. We think the amendment made by the Judge, by permitting other taxpayers to be joined as plaintiffs, was within his power and was proper.

2. It is decided in Carolina Central R. W. Co. v. City of Wil mington, 72 N. C. Rep., 73, that any provision in the charter of a town, wherebjr the town officers are authorized to value the property in the'town for taxation, is superceded by the provision in the Constitution, that the Township Trustees shall value all the property of the township, subject to the revision of the County Commissioners. The town authorities must accept the valuation thus made. The valuation complained of was therefore void, and so Was the tax levied on the basis of it.

3. Art. YII, sec. 9, of the Constitution, says, “ All taxes levied by any county, city, town or township shall be uniform and ad valorem upon all property in the same, except property exempted by this Constitution.” All taxes, there-i’ore, must be levied as well on personal as on real property, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the charter. The word property ” includes bonds, stocks, solvent notes, &c. Wilson v. City of Chariotte, 74 N. C. Rep., 748.

4. The town officers in their levying of taxes are bound by the limitation in the charter, except for the sole and express purpose of paying debts lawfully incurred before such limitation was enacted. In levying within such limit they must observe the proportion between property and polls fixed by the Constitution. Weinstein v. Commissioners of Newborn, 72 N. C. Rep., 536.

*8 5. Debts owing by the town corporation, in whatever form they may be evidenced, cannot be set off against a demand for town taxes, unless there be a special contract to that effect. Battle v. Ihompson, 65 N. C., 406.

The above are all the questions presented for our consideration in this case, and it will be seen that they have all been heretofore considered and decided.

There is no error in the judgment below, continuing the injunction to the hearing, and it is affirmed. Case remanded.

Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Onslow County v. Phillips
473 S.E.2d 643 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Benoline Co. v. State Ex Rel. Bettman
171 N.E. 33 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners v. Blue
130 S.E. 743 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Commissioners v. . Hall
99 S.E. 372 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
State Ex Rel. Morganton Graded School v. McDowell
72 S.E. 1083 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Wilmington v. Bryan
141 N.C. 666 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Harper v. Commissioners of New Hanover County
45 S.E. 526 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Wiley v. Commissioners of Salisbury
16 S.E. 542 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
Redmond v. Commissioners of the Town of Tarboro
10 S.E. 845 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Moore v. Tate
87 Tenn. 725 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1889)
Gatling v. . Commissioners of Carteret
92 N.C. 536 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
Shaver v. Robinson
59 Ala. 195 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
Perry County v. Selma, Marion & Memphis Railroad
58 Ala. 546 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 N.C. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-corp-of-elizabeth-city-nc-1876.