Case Name: COMMISSIONERS v. STAFFORD
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1905-05-23
Citations: 138 N.C. 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: COMMISSIONERS v. STAFFORD.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 453–456

Head Matter:
COMMISSIONERS v. STAFFORD.
(Filed May 23, 1905.)
Counties — Bonds for Necessary Expenses — Statutes— Amendments.
1. The legislature has the power to pass an act authorizing a county to issue bonds for the purpose of raising funds to discharge an indebtedness incurred for necessary expenses.
2. When an act has been passed in accordance with Art. 2, Sec. 14 of the Constitution an amendment which does not increase the amount of the bonds or the taxes to be levied or otherwise materially change the original bill, may be adopted by the concurrence of both houses of the general assembly.
3. An amendment to a bill authorizing county commissioners to issue bonds which struck out a provision permitting the commissioners to purchase at the end of 5 years and annually thereafter one-fifth of the bonds does not materially affect the original bill.
ActioN 'by tbe Board of Commissioners of Chatham County against E. M. Stafford & Company, heard by Judge B. F. Long at the May Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Chatham County.
This is a civil action submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts: “The Legislature of North Carolina, at its session of 1905, passed an act, set out in the record, authorizing the Commissioners of Chatham County to issue and sell bonds in the sum of $20,000, redeemable in the following manner, two thousand dollars ten years from the date of issue and two thousand dollars annually thereafter until the whole amount should be paid, said bonds to bear interest at five per cent. Said bonds were authorized to be issued to pay the outstanding indebtedness incurred for the necessary expense of said County prior to the first day of January, 1905, which fact appears in the body of the act and is an admitted fact. The bill was originally introduced in tbe Senate, containing a provision permitting tbe Board of Commissioners of tbe said county, after tbe expiration of five years from tbe date of issue, to purchase, at tbeir discretion, annually, an amount not exceeding one-fifth of tbe whole of said issue. This provision was contained in section 2 of said original bill. Tbe bill in this form passed tbe Senate in strict compliance with tbe requirements of Art. II., sec. 14, of tbe Constitution of North Carolina; was then sent to tbe House of Representatives and passed that body in tbe constitutional manner upon its first and second readings, when an amendment was offered, striking out tbe said section 2, and tbe bill as thus amended was passed in tbe House of Representatives in tbe way and manner prescribed by tbe said article and section of tbe Constitution; it went back to tbe Senate, which body concurred in tbe amendment. Tbe bill was then properly ratified as required by law. Tbe plaintiffs, after tbe ratification of tbe bill, passed an order, as appears on tbeir minutes, authorizing tbe issue and sale of tbe twenty thousand dollars worth of'bonds authorized in tbe act, tbe same to be sold at tbe court bouse in Pittsboro on tbe 10th day of March, 1905. Tbe said sale was advertised in accordance with the provisions of tbe act, and tbe bonds exposed to public sale at tbe said time and place. Several bids were offered, and E. M. Stafford & Co., tbe defendants, were tbe highest bidders at tbe sum of twenty thousand, nine hundred dollars, and tbe bonds were awarded to them, tbe written bid, the acceptance of tbe same by tbe board, which was then in session, became a part of tbe minutes of tbe said board. Tbe defendants have been furnished with a statement from tbe clerk of tbe Board of Commissioners showing tbe minutes of tbe board, which are satisfactory to them, also that tbe certified copy from tbe Secretary of State of North Carolina giving copy of the Journals of both Houses of tbe Legislature as above stated. Tbe purposed issue of bonds is for tbe indebtedness of tbe county incurred prior to the first day of January, 1905, which, indebtedness was incurred for the necessary expenses- of the county. It is agreed that if the court shall be of opinion that the said bonds are, or will be when issued, valid, then the defendants shall be ordered by judgment of the court to comply with their bid, pay the money and.take the bonds; but if it shall be of opinion that the bonds issued under this act are not valid, then judgment shall be entered against the plaintiffs.”
The court being of opinion that the bill was duly passed and ratified in accordance with the Constitution rendered judgment that the defendants take and pay for the bonds in accordance with their bid. Defendants excepted and appealed.
B. II. Hayes for the plaintiff.
17. D. Siler for the defendant.

Opinion:
Connor, J.,
after stating the facts. It is conceded and so recited in the Statute and the record, that the bonds authorized to be issued are for the purpose of raising funds with which to discharge an indebtedness incurred for necessary expenses. That the legislature had the power to pass the act is settled by numerous decisions of this court Smathers v. Qommissioners, 125 N. C., 480; Jones v. Commissioners, 50 S. E. Rep., 291.
It is equally well settled that, when the Act has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Art. II., section 14 of the Constitution, an amendment which does not increase the amount of the bonds or the tax to be levied, or otherwise materially change the original -bill may be adopted by the concurrence of both houses of the General Assembly. Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C., 730; Brown v. Stewart, 134 N. C., 357. Section II. simply authorized the Commissioners, if they should deem it wise, to purchase at the end of five years, and annually thereafter, one-fifth of the bonds. This was in no way obligatory and we are nnable to see bow its omission by amendment, materially affected the original bill. If the Commissioners bad seen fit to exercise their discretion the, annual tax may bave been increased — it certainly conld not bave been decreased. We said in Brown v. Stewart, supra, "We can see no reason wby the amendment imposing no tax, creating no debt nor increasing the amount of the bonds or the rate of interest thereon conld not be adopted by the Senate and incorporated into the original bill on and before its second reading." Tbis language applies to the case before us — wherein a section having similar relation to the original bill is stricken out. We are of the opinion that His Honor's judgment is correct and must be
Affirmed.