Pegram v. Commissioners of Cleaveland County

64 N.C. 557
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 64 N.C. 557 (Pegram v. Commissioners of Cleaveland County) 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
Pegram v. Commissioners of Cleaveland County, 64 N.C. 557 (N.C. 1870).

Opinion

*558 Peaeson, O. J.'

The matter set out in the return is not a sufficient cause against the writ of mandcvmus.

1. Mandamus to compel the levy of taxes is the appropriate remedy: Winslow v. Comm’rs. Perquimans, ante, 218. An action will lie against the Commissioners of a County for a money demand; but it appears that in other cases mandamus is the proper remedy.

2. The fact that the Commissioners had no funds in hand, is a very cogent reason for levying a tax in order to raise funds to meet the liability of the County.

3. In University R. R. Co., v. Holden, 63 N. C., 410, all of the Justices of this Court agreed that the u equation of taxation ” established by the Constitution, does not restrict the power of State taxation to meet the interest of the public debt. On the same principle, Art. V, sec. 7 of the Constitution does not restrict the power of County taxation to meet the interest of the debt of the County, and such taxation does not require the special approval of the General Assembly.

Besides, it is alleged in the petition, and not denied by the return, that the act of February 1857, under which these bonds were issued, makes it the duty of the Justices of the County to provide means for paying the interest annually, by levying taxes. The Commissioners succeed to the rights and duties of the Justices. So the power to levy this tax is. ample, and the neglect or refusal to do so, must be ascribed to unwillingness rather than a want of power.

Order overruling the demurrer • reversed. It is declared' to he the opinion of this Court that the writ of mandamus, should he issued as prayed for. This will he certified, to the. end that his Honor may direct the writ to he issued.

Pek Cukiam. Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Casualty Co. v. . Comrs. of Saluda
199 S.E. 7 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Norfolk Southern Railroad v. McArtan
116 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State ex rel. White v. Dickerson
33 Nev. 540 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1910)
Badger v. City of New Orleans
21 So. 870 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1897)
People ex rel. German Insurance of Freeport v. Getzendaner
34 N.E. 297 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1891)
Hughes v. Commissioners of Craven County
12 S.E. 465 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Uzzle v. Commissioners of Franklin County
70 N.C. 564 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)
Alexander v. . Commissioners
70 N.C. 208 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 N.C. 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pegram-v-commissioners-of-cleaveland-county-nc-1870.