Case ID: nc_148/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BeowN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. L. COTTRELL v. TOWN OF LENOIR.
    (Filed 29 May, 1908.)
    1. Municipal Bonds — Registration Books — Charter and Further Legislative Provisions — Interpretation—Constitutional Law.
    Wlien there is a charter requirement oí a municipality that registration books be kept open for twenty days preceding an election, and, under the provisions of a subsequent legislative act, bonds are issued pursuant to a further requirement that ten days’ previous notice shall be given of the whereabouts of the registrar, the provision of the act is construed to supply a reasonable requirement, concerning which the charter is deficient, and the issue is valid when the provisions of the charter and the act are complied with.
    2. Municipal Bonds — Legislative Authority — Vote of People — Constitutional Law.
    Municipal bonds for' special purposes, issued by express authority of the Legislature and approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the town, are valid. (Wharton v. Gre&nsboro, 146 N. C., 356, cited and distinguished.)
    ActxoN to restrain tbe issuing of certain bonds, beard at chambers by Oowncill, J., at Statesville, 18 May, 1908, from Caldwell.
    Erom a judgment for defendant plaintiff appealed.
    Tbe facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mark Squires for plaintiff.
    
      W. G. Newland for defendant.
   BeowN, J.

By act of the General Assembly of 1907 (Private Laws, cb. 83) tbe town of Lenoir was empowered to issue bonds, not exceeding $100,000, for municipal improvements. Twenty thousand dollars in amount have been issued, sold and the proceeds paid into tbe town treasury and applied to street paving. Tbe authorities of tbe town have undertaken to issue $80,000 more, to be applied to the establishment of a water and sewerage system.

It is contended by plaintiff that the entire issue is invalid:

1. Because tbe registration books were kept open for twenty days preceding tbe election upon tbe bond issue instead of ten days.

2. Because tbe entire issue is in excess of ten per cent, of tbe tax value of tbe property, in violation of section 2917 of tbe Revisal.

As to tbe first contention, we are of opinion that tbe bond election was properly held, in accordance with the provisions of tbe defendant’s charter, which requires that tbe registration books shall be kept open for twenty days preceding the election. Tbe evident purpose of tbe act 'of 1907 is to require that tbe bond election shall be held in accordance with tbe town charter, with tbe additional requirement that ten days’ notice shall be given as to tbe whereabouts of tbe registrar for that time preceding tbe election. It seems that in this reasonable requirement tbe original charter is deficient.

As to tbe second contention, we are of opinion that tbe case of Wharton v. Greensboro, 146 N. C., 356, has no application. In that case tbe aldermen had general power to issue bonds, under section 100 of tbe charter of tbe city of Greensboro, when the provisions of tbe act were complied with. No amount .was named in tbe act apd no limit fixed. We held that in such case section 2977 of tbe Revisal was not repealed by implication, and that tbe General Assembly was supposed to have it in view when tbe amended charter was enacted.

In tbe case we are now considering there is express legislative authority to issue $100,000 in bonds, which has also been ratified and approved by a majority of tbe qualified voters of tbe town.

We are of tbe opinion that tbe issue of bonds is legal in all respects. Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.