Hemric v. Board of Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hemric v. Board of Commissioners

175 S.E. 168, 206 N.C. 845, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 326

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 11, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 168 (Hemric v. Board of Commissioners) 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

Hemric v. Board of Commissioners, 175 S.E. 168, 206 N.C. 845, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 326 (N.C. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNnoe, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether a bond order passed by the board of commissioners of a county in this State, under the authority and subject to the provisions of the County Finance Act (Public Laws of North Carolina, 1927, chap. 81, North Carolina Code of 1931, chap. 24, Art. 7A) authorizing and directing the issuance of bonds of the county for the purpose of procuring money to be expended in the purchase, construction, improvement and equipment of schoolhouses in the several school districts of the county, which are necessary for the maintenance of public schools in said districts, for a term of at least six months, each year, as required by the Constitution of this State, is subject to the approval of the voters of the county, when a petition signed by the requisite number of voters of said county has been filed with the said board of commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of said act.

This question must be answered in the affirmative, and for that reason the judgment in the instant case is affirmed. See Frazier v. Commissioners, 194 N. C., 49, 138 S. E., 433.

Where no petition has been filed within the time prescribed by the act, praying that a bond order duly passed by the board of commissioners of a county, be submitted to the voters of the county, in accordance with the provisions of the act, the bond order is valid and effective, without the approval of the voters of the county. Julian v. Ward, 198 N. C., 480, 152 S. E., 401, Hall v. Commissioners, 195 N. C., 367, 142 S. E., 315, and 194 N. C., 768, 140 S. E., 139, and Frazier v. Commissioners, supra.

Where, however, a petition is filed in accordance with the provisions of the County Finance Act, praying that a bond order duly passed by the board of commissioners of a county in this State, authorizing and directing the issuance of bonds of the county for the purpose of procuring money for the purchase, construction, improvement or equipment of schoolhouses required for the maintenance of a school in each of the districts of the county as required by the Constitution of the State, be submitted to the voters of the county, such bond order is not valid or effective, until the same has been approved by the voters of the county as provided in the act. It is so provided in the County Finance Act, as we construe its terms and provisions. There is no error in the judgment. It is

Affirmed.

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

CoNnoe, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether a bond order passed by the board of commissioners of a county in this State, under the authority and subject to the provisions of the County Finance Act (Public Laws of North Carolina, 1927, chap. 81, North Carolina Code of 1931, chap. 24, Art. 7A) authorizing and directing the issuance of bonds of the county for the purpose of procuring money to be expended in the purchase, construction, improvement and equipment of schoolhouses in the several school districts of the county, which are necessary for the maintenance of public schools in said districts, for a term of at least six months, each year, as required by the Constitution of this State, is subject to the approval of the voters of the county, when a petition signed by the requisite number of voters of said county has been filed with the said board of commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of said act.

This question must be answered in the affirmative, and for that reason the judgment in the instant case is affirmed. See Frazier v. Commissioners, 194 N. C., 49, 138 S. E., 433.

Where no petition has been filed within the time prescribed by the act, praying that a bond order duly passed by the board of commissioners of a county, be submitted to the voters of the county, in accordance with the provisions of the act, the bond order is valid and effective, without the approval of the voters of the county. Julian v. Ward, 198 N. C., 480, 152 S. E., 401, Hall v. Commissioners, 195 N. C., 367, 142 S. E., 315, and 194 N. C., 768, 140 S. E., 139, and Frazier v. Commissioners, supra.

Where, however, a petition is filed in accordance with the provisions of the County Finance Act, praying that a bond order duly passed by the board of commissioners of a county in this State, authorizing and directing the issuance of bonds of the county for the purpose of procuring money for the purchase, construction, improvement or equipment of schoolhouses required for the maintenance of a school in each of the districts of the county as required by the Constitution of the State, be submitted to the voters of the county, such bond order is not valid or effective, until the same has been approved by the voters of the county as provided in the act. It is so provided in the County Finance Act, as we construe its terms and provisions. There is no error in the judgment. It is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 168, 206 N.C. 845, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemric-v-board-of-commissioners-nc-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack