Leonard v. Board of Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Leonard v. Board of Commissioners

117 S.E. 580, 185 N.C. 527, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 108

DecidedMay 26, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 117 S.E. 580 (Leonard 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

Leonard v. Board of Commissioners, 117 S.E. 580, 185 N.C. 527, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 108 (N.C. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoke, J.

Plaintiff is seeking to restrain the proposed bond issue, because the statute under which defendants are proceeding was not enacted in accord with Article II, section 14, of the Constitution, which provides, among other things, that all bills of this character shall be read three several times in each house of the General Assembly, and pass three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days and agreed to by each House respectively, and unless the ayes and noes on the second and third readings of the' bill shall be entered in the Journal, the single objection being that on the second reading of the bill the entry on the Senate Journal is as follows:

“Senate Bill 224, House Bill 208, a bill to authorize the county commissioners of Surry County to issue $150,000 of county bonds for the purpose of construction and improving the public roads of Surry County upon the second reading.

“Those voting in the affirmative are Senators Armfield, Baggett, Boyette, Brown of Columbus, Brown of Rockingham, Castelloe, Delaney, Ebbs, Grady, Graham, Griffin, Hargett, Harris of Franklin, Harris of "Wake, Harrison, Heath, Hodges, Johnson of Beaufort, Jones of Alle-ghany, Jurney, Lattimore, McDonald, Mendenhall, Moss, Parker, Ray, Sams, Squires, Tapp, Varser, 'Walker, Williams, Woltz, Woodson — 35.”

Thus, as appellant contends, showing no entries of any negative votes.

The question presented has been directly resolved against appellant’s position in Comrs. v. Trust Co., 143 N. C., 110. In that case, as here, the entry showing that a large majority of the Senate voted for the bill, giving the names of the Senators so voting, with no entry of negative votes, the Court held: “An entry on the legislative journal that 'The' bill passed its second reading, ayes 39, noes., as follows’: then follows a list of those voting in the affirmative, without any reference to those voting in the negative, indicates that the bill passed by a unanimous vote *530 in that there were no names to be recorded in the negative, and is a compliance with the requirements of Article II, section 14, of the Constitution, that the ayes and noes shall be entered on the journals. Debnam v. Chitty, 131 N. C., 657, overruled.”

The authority is decisive, and the judgment of his Honor is

Affirmed.

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

Hoke, J.

Plaintiff is seeking to restrain the proposed bond issue, because the statute under which defendants are proceeding was not enacted in accord with Article II, section 14, of the Constitution, which provides, among other things, that all bills of this character shall be read three several times in each house of the General Assembly, and pass three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days and agreed to by each House respectively, and unless the ayes and noes on the second and third readings of the' bill shall be entered in the Journal, the single objection being that on the second reading of the bill the entry on the Senate Journal is as follows:

“Senate Bill 224, House Bill 208, a bill to authorize the county commissioners of Surry County to issue $150,000 of county bonds for the purpose of construction and improving the public roads of Surry County upon the second reading.

“Those voting in the affirmative are Senators Armfield, Baggett, Boyette, Brown of Columbus, Brown of Rockingham, Castelloe, Delaney, Ebbs, Grady, Graham, Griffin, Hargett, Harris of Franklin, Harris of "Wake, Harrison, Heath, Hodges, Johnson of Beaufort, Jones of Alle-ghany, Jurney, Lattimore, McDonald, Mendenhall, Moss, Parker, Ray, Sams, Squires, Tapp, Varser, 'Walker, Williams, Woltz, Woodson — 35.”

Thus, as appellant contends, showing no entries of any negative votes.

The question presented has been directly resolved against appellant’s position in Comrs. v. Trust Co., 143 N. C., 110. In that case, as here, the entry showing that a large majority of the Senate voted for the bill, giving the names of the Senators so voting, with no entry of negative votes, the Court held: “An entry on the legislative journal that 'The' bill passed its second reading, ayes 39, noes., as follows’: then follows a list of those voting in the affirmative, without any reference to those voting in the negative, indicates that the bill passed by a unanimous vote *530 in that there were no names to be recorded in the negative, and is a compliance with the requirements of Article II, section 14, of the Constitution, that the ayes and noes shall be entered on the journals. Debnam v. Chitty, 131 N. C., 657, overruled.”

The authority is decisive, and the judgment of his Honor is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E. 580, 185 N.C. 527, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-board-of-commissioners-nc-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack