Court Opinion

ID: 9808624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:44:43.595925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:19.959015
License: Public Domain

DeviN, J.,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the disposition made of this case for the reason that in my opinion the plaintiff has shown a substantial compliance with the statute (C. S., 1330) by presenting for audit and allowance interest coupons of defendant’s bonds to the city manager, who is admittedly the administrative head of the city government, and particularly in charge of its financial matters. It was in evidence that the city manager refused to audit, allow or pay the coupons unless the plaintiff would agree to accept 4 per cent interest instead of the contract rate of 5% per cent, which plaintiff declined to do. The purpose of sec. 1330 is to protect municipal corporations from suits until they have been advised of the claims and had opportunity to consider them. That purpose seems to have been fully accomplished here, for not only did the city defend plaintiff’s previous suit on these same coupons, but it has defended this suit, which was brought on its written obligation in the form of coupons of its own bonds, through-.three courts, merely because, as the evidence shows, the *620city insisted that tbe owner of its bonds accept 4 per cent interest instead of 5% per cent as contracted.
In tbe interest of fair dealing, a narrow and restricted construction should not be placed on tbe words “proper authorities” when tbe spirit and purpose of tbe act have been substantially met. Machinery Co. v. Sellers, 197 N. C., 30, 147 S. E., 674.
I am authorized to say BabNiiill, J., concurs in this dissenting opinion.