Case Name: GEORGE N. HUTTON, et. als., partners in manufacturing lumber, v. THOMAS M. WEBB, Sheriff, and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BURKE COUNTY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1899-05-10
Citations: 124 N.C. 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE N. HUTTON, et. als., partners in manufacturing lumber, v. THOMAS M. WEBB, Sheriff, and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BURKE COUNTY.
Judges: EuRCK.es, J., delivers opinion of tbe Court.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 749–760

Head Matter:
GEORGE N. HUTTON, et. als., partners in manufacturing lumber, v. THOMAS M. WEBB, Sheriff, and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BURKE COUNTY.
(Decided May 10, 1899).
Floatable Streams — Oataioba and Johns Rivers Assessments Act 1897, Ghap 888 — Constitution, Art. VIII, Section i
1. The right of taxation or assessment is a grant of sovereign power, and can only be exercised for the public good, and not for private benefits or for corporate gain, unless such.gain be incident to the public benefit.
2. While the Legislature may by proper enactments provide for the improvement of navigable and floatable water ways for the benefit of navigation, it can not impose duties upon the commerce upon such waters, for the purpose of building bridges or cleaning out fords, public and private, across such water courses.
3. The Act of 1897, chapter 388, appointing a Board of Managers to provide for removing driftwood from the Catawba and Johns Rivers, between points named, which may gather at the shoals, on said streams, at low water, so as to obstruct fords used for public and private crossings, or pond back the water —and empowering the Board to ascertain the number of logs floated down said streams, and to impose an assessment upon each log, the fund derived to be apportioned among the Counties of Burke, Catawba and McDowell, and to be used for the purpose of keeping the fords clear and for building bridges'— is manifestly an Act passed for the benefit of these Counties, and not for the public good, and is in contravention of the Constitution, Art. VIII, Section 4, inhibiting abuse in assessment, and is in conflict with the whole tenor and spirit of the Constitution, and of our institutions.
Civil ActioN for injunction relief to restrain tbe defendants from enforcing an assessment on tbe property of plain tiffs, and from interfering with, their floatage of logs down the Catawba and John Rivers.
A temporary order of restraint was granted by Robinson, J., in this cause pending in Bueke Superior Court, and came to a hearing, by consent, before Bryan, J., at Chambers at Raleigh, on 25th October, 1898, and was heard upon affidavits from both sides by his Honor.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were engaged in the manufacture of lumber in this State, owning planing mills and a saw mill plant in Catawba County — also owning large quantities of stand timber on the Catawba and Johns Rivers, and also owning a large quantity of cut logs, and are purchasing large quantities of logs to supply the milling plant, and that their only convenient way of getting the same to said plant is by floating them down said Rivers, which are floatable streams.
That the defendant Commissioners have caused an assessment of $275.50 to be made upon their logs, and have required the defendant sheriff to collect the same, and that he has levied upon 150,000 feet of their sawed lumber and has advertised it for sale.
That the defendants are professing to act under color of an Act of the legislature ratified March 9, 1897, (Act 1897, Chap. 388), which in terms attempts to authorize the Board 'of Managers mentioned therein to exact such tolls for the purpose of removing of driftwood “that may gather at the shoals on said streams, when the water is low, so as to obstruct fords used for public and private crossings, or pond back the water at any point” on said Rivers, and also for the purpose of building certain- public bridges over the said streams; that the plaintiffs are advised that the said Act is invalid and void, in that the Legislature has no power to authorize assessments for such purposes on the plaintiffs and others of the public engaged in tbe exercise of tbe paramount right of navigation by floating of said streams, and tbat tbe duty of building sucb bridges and clearing out of sucb fords from driftwood is imposed upon tbe public generally to whose benefits it enures, and not upon these plaintiffs alone and those similarly engaged in tbe floatage of logs in said streams who receive no peculiar benefit from the building of such bridges or tbe clearing out of such fords, apart from tbe general public, being in no wise necessary to, or in furtherance of, tbe floatage of-logs during tbe seasons when said streams are floatable.
Tbe answer sets up the Act of 1897, Chap. 388, as a full and complete authorization of tbe acts of tbe defendants, complained of by plaintiffs. TTis Honor continued tbe injunction until tbe final bearing. Defendants excepted and appealed.
Messrs. A. 0. Avery and J. M. Mull, for defendants (appellant).
Messrs. Shepherd & Busbee, for plaintiffs.
EuRCK.es, J., delivers opinion of tbe Court.
MONTGOMERY, J., dissents.
Clare, J., delivers dissenting opinion.
Douglas, J., delivers concurring opinion.

Opinion:
Eurciies, J.
We think tbe judgment below should be affirmed. To our minds there is too little resemblance in a public turnpike road and a navigable water course to afford analogy for argument, from which proper conclusions may be drawn. Tbe turnpike is created by legislation and can be abolished by legislation. But a navigable water course is not created by legislation and can not be abolished by legislation.
It is true that tbe Legislature may by proper enactment provide for tbe improvement of sucb waterway for tbe benefit of 'navigation. But the Legislature can not impose duties upon tbe commerce upon sucb waters, for tbe purpose of "building public bridges, and of cleaning out tbe fords, public and private, across" sucb water courses. Tbe right of taxation or "assessment" is a grant of sovereign power and can only be exercised for the public good. This sovereign power can not be granted for private benefits or for corporate gain, unless sucb gain be incident to tbe public benefit, authorizing tbe exercise of the taxing power of government.
It is manifest from tbe provisions of this Act that it was passed for tbe benefit of tbe Counties of Burke, McDowell and Caldwell, and not for tbe public good — the improvement of tbe navigation of tbe streams therein named, as their improvement for sucb purpose is not mentioned. Tbe duty of this "board is to remove driftwood (that may gather at shoals on said streams when tbe water is low, so as to obstruct fords used for public and private crossings, or pond back tbe water) at any point on tbe Catawba River," etc. And this board is to provide for the ascertainment of tbe number of logs floated and to fix the charge thereon; and "after paying for keeping the shoals as aforesaid and for ascertaining tbe number of logs floated, any residue of tbe fund arising from said tolls shall be divided among said Counties." This board is to report to tbe Commissioners of each of tbe Counties the respective part of dividends that belong to it, and the Commissioners shall "assess tbe same" and enter up judgment for said amount against tbe parties assessed, and execution shall issue thereon "as for other tax assessments." This Act was passed in tbe Spring of 1897, and under its operation tbe plaintiff was taxed $275.50 in tbe Spring of 1898, and his property advertised for sale. But few private business enterprises in this State can stand such an assessment as this. In our opinion, it is in contravention of the provision Article VIII, Section 4, of the Constitution, there being nothing in the Act limiting the power or extent of taxation.
But outside of this provision of the Constitution, we do not believe it can be sustained. It provides for the levy of "taxes or assessments" on private property for private benefit, and not for the public good. It is in conflict with the whole tenor and spirit of the Constitution, and of our institutions. It is an unauthorized exercise of sovereign power in the hands of this new board of Commissioners, and we think the judgment of the Court appealed from should.be affirmed.
MONTGOMERY, J., dissents.