Case Name: J. F. ALEXANDER et al. v. J. C. LOWRANCE et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-12-07
Citations: 182 N.C. 646
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. F. ALEXANDER et al. v. J. C. LOWRANCE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 646–646

Head Matter:
J. F. ALEXANDER et al. v. J. C. LOWRANCE et al.
(Filed 7 December, 1921.)
Schools — Bonds—School Committees — County Treasurer — Injunction.
Where it has been judicially determined that the treasurer of an incorporated city or town has unlawfully retained and refuses to pay over to a school district funds in his hands, received from the sale of bonds for school purposes, the city or town will be restrained from proceeding to use the funds in the construction of schoolhouses, at the suit of the members of the board of school districts having the right thereto.
Appeal by defendant from Shcúw, J., 15 September, 1921, from Ruthekeosd.
Appeal by tbe defendants from a judgment restraining tbe defendants from erecting a school building in tbe town of Forest City. Tbe plaintiffs alleged tbat tbe proceeds of tbe bonds were in tbe bands of tbe town treasurer; that the treasurer of the graded school committee was entitled to tbe fund as tbe lawful depositary; tbat tbe defendants bad prepared plans and specifications for tbe erection of tbe building, and were ready to proceed with its construction; and tbat tbe defendants’ attempted expenditure of tbe fund was wrongful and unlawful. Tbe answer of tbe defendants was practically tbe same as tbe answer filed by them denying tbe right of tbe plaintiffs to tbe mandamus.
B. B. Blanton and, Byburn <& Hoey for plaintiffs.
Solomon Gallert for defendants.

Opinion:
Adams, J.
Tbe disposition of this case is governed by tbe decision adjudging tbe plaintiffs entitled to tbe writ of mandamus. We have held tbat tbe plaintiffs are entitled to tbe proceeds arising from tbe sale of tbe bonds, and it follows as a corollary tbat tbe plaintiffs are entitled to have tbe fund protected from expenditure by tbe defendants. Tbe judgment continuing tbe restraining order is therefore
Affirmed.