Fawcett v. Town of Mt. Airy

45 S.E. 1029, 134 N.C. 125, 1903 N.C. LEXIS 210
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 18, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by81 cases

This text of 45 S.E. 1029 (Fawcett v. Town of Mt. Airy) 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
Fawcett v. Town of Mt. Airy, 45 S.E. 1029, 134 N.C. 125, 1903 N.C. LEXIS 210 (N.C. 1903).

Opinion

MontgoMeby, J.

Whether a city or town has the right to incur an indebtedness for the erection and operation of plants for the supply of water and electric lights for municipal use and to sell to its inhabitants is a necessary municipal * expense, is the question again presented to us for decision. Indebtedness incurred by a city or town for a supply of water stands on the same footing as indebtedness incurred for lighting purposes, and if such indebtedness be a necessary expense, then whether or not a municipality may incur it, does not depend upon the approval of the proposition by a majority of the qualified voters of the municipality. It is only in cases where counties, cities or towns undertake to contract debts or *126 pledge their faith, or loan their credit or levy taxes, except for the necessary expenses thereof, that the submission of the proposition must be made to a vote of the qualified voters of srich county, city or town. Wilson v. Commissioners, 14 N. C., 748; Tucker v. Commissioners, 75 N. C., 274.

It is almost impossible to define in legal phraseology the meaning of the words “necessary expense” as applied to the wants of a city or town government. A precise line cannot be drawn between what' are and what are not such expenses. The consequence is that as municipalities grow in wealth and population, as civilization advances with the habits and customs of necessary changes, the aid of the courts is constantly invoked to make decisions on this subject. In the nature of things it could not be otherwise; and it is not to’ be expected, in the changed conditions which occur in the lives of progressive people, that things deemed unnecessary in the government of municipal corporations in one age should be so considered for all future time. In the efforts of the courts to check extravagance and to, prevent corruption in the government of towns and cities, the judicial branch of the government has probably stood by former decisions from too conservative a standpoint, and thereby obstructed the advance of business ideas which would be most beneficial if put into operation; and this conservatism of the courts, outgrown by the march of progress, sometimes appears at a serious disadvantage.

Ota. this subject this Ciourt, in Wilson v. Commissioners, supra, uses the following instructive and suggestive language: “The analogy of the law of the necessities for infants is the only one that occurs to us. It is held that if, considering the means and station of life of the infant, the articles sold to him may be necessaries under any circumstances, they come within a class for which the infant may be liable, and upon his refusal to pay it is for a jury to determine whether under the actual circumstances they were necessary. If, however, *127 the articles are merely ornamental and such as cannot under any circumstances be necessary to the one of means and station of the infant, the Court may as a matter of law declare that the infant is not liable. We do not undertake to say that this analogy will furnish a rule which will admit of a close application. But if treated merely as an analogy in the absence of other guides it may be of some general use.”

It seems strange that it should be declared by some of our courts of highest reputation that the purchase of a town clock or hay scales or a pump is a necessary expense, when the supply of light to enable its citizens to walk its streets in security, or a supply of wholesome water to prevent disease and suffering, should be held as not a necessary expense. It is pretty generally held by the courts that the expense incurred for the widening of streets is a necessary expense, that a market-house is a necessary expense, and surely if that be sound law the courts ought to hesitate before they would pronounce a debt incurred for the furnishing of light and water not to be a necessary expense. And it seems to us that it may be reasonably considered as certain that the words “necessary expense” do not mean expenses incurred or to be incurred for purposes or objects that are only for the procurement or maintenance nf things absolutely essential to the existence of the municipality. The expenditure of money for the widening of streets, the erection of market-houses, town clocks and hay scales are all considered as necessary expenses, and those things are not essential to the life of the municipality. A city or town might be fairly well governed -and be prosperous without having appointed and fixed particular places for the sale of market produce, or without keeping the time of day, or weighing grain and fodder; and certainly expenses incurred for water and light are more necessary than those for a market-house, clocks and scales. The words “necessary expense,” then, must mean such expenses as are or may be in- *128 eurred in the establishing and procuring of tiróse things without which the peace and order of the community, its moral interests and the protection of its property and that of tire property and persons of its inhabitants would seriously suffer considerable damage, leaving out of view the matter of the great inconvenience that would be attendant upon our present social life for want of such expenditures. The use of water from wells dug in populous communities is proscribed by the recent progress made in the science of bacteriology, the practical lessons of that science having been learned by the people generally.

It is of common knowledge that the most fearful scourges of certain most dangerous forms of fever arise from the use of water from wells in towns and cities; and it is out of the power of individuals in towns and cities to erect and operate appliances for supply of water. As to the question of lighting the streets and public places, the experience of all who live in towns and cities of any considerable population is that without lights upon the streets and in the public buildings both life and property would be insecure-, to say nothing of the almost complete destruction of the conveniences of life and the marring of its social features. The fire department, prob-bably the most important of the municipal departments, would be rendered ineffective, and a considerable part of the commerce — 'trade of the country — would be destroyed; for under our changed conditions a good deal of the traffic between different communities and a respectable part of our mail service are conducted at night. It will not do to say that a city or town may expend money or incur a debt for the purchase of lights by the month or the year, but that it may not incur a debt for the construction and operation of a system of water-works or for the installment of an electric plant for lighting. If the matter of lighting is a necessary expense, then how and in what manner the city shall furnish such *129 lighting is with the authorities of the city or town to determine. The-courts determine what class of expenditures made or to be made by a municipal corporation come under the definition of “necessary expenses.” The governing authorities of the municipal corporations are vested with the power to determine when they are needed, and, except in cases of fraud, the courts cannot control the discretion of the commissioners.

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

Related

Bynum v. Wilson County
746 S.E.2d 296 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2013)
MCI CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. Hazen and Sawyer, PC
310 F. Supp. 2d 754 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)
Mitchell v. North Carolina Industrial Development Financing Authority
159 S.E.2d 745 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Ramsey v. Rollins
100 S.E.2d 55 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Rhodes v. City of Asheville
52 S.E.2d 371 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Green v. . Kitchin
50 S.E.2d 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Nash v. . Tarboro
42 S.E.2d 209 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Nash v. Town of Tarboro
227 N.C. 283 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Purser v. . Ledbetter
40 S.E.2d 702 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Town of Seaford v. Eastern Shore Public Service Co.
24 A.2d 436 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1942)
Sing v. City of Charlotte
195 S.E. 271 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Williamson v. City of High Point
195 S.E. 90 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Town of Weaverville v. Hobbs
212 N.C. 684 (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)
Town of Benson v. County of Johnston
185 S.E. 6 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Board of Financial Control v. County of Henderson
181 S.E. 636 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Martin v. . Raleigh.
180 S.E. 786 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Martin v. City of Raleigh
208 N.C. 369 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Starmount Co. v. Town of Hamilton Lakes
171 S.E. 909 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 S.E. 1029, 134 N.C. 125, 1903 N.C. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fawcett-v-town-of-mt-airy-nc-1903.