McDowell v. Rutherford Ry. Const. Co.
Decision Date | 09 May 1887 |
Citation | 96 N.C. 514,2 S.E. 351 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | McDOWELL v. RUTHERFORD Ry. CONST. Co. and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Rutherford county.
W. P. Bynum and E. C. Smith, for plaintiff.
No counsel contra.
The defendant, the Rutherford Railway Construction Company, is a corporation organized under and in pursuance of the statute, (Acts 1883, p. 141.) The sections of that statute necessary to an understanding of the opinion of the court provide as follows:
Section 13 of the statute provides that the county commissioners may issue bonds of the county named, in the way prescribed, to pay for the capital stock so to be and when subscribed; and section 14 provides that the proper county authorities shall levy a county tax adequate to pay the interest that may accrue upon the bonds so to be issued, and the principal thereof when the same shall come due.
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint, in substance, that the defendants the county commissioners of the county of Rutherford purported and professed, in pursuance of the above statutory provisions, to cause an election to be held in that county, as therein prescribed and allowed, on the second day of August, 1883, to take the sense of the qualified voters of that county upon the proposition to subscribe for it $100,000 to the capital stock of the Rutherford Railway Construction Company in the way and manner prescribed, and they declared the alleged result of such election as follows: “It having been shown to us that at the election held on the second day of August, 1883, upon the subject of a railroad subscription, it was carried for ‘transfer,’ and also for subscription, by a majority of the qualified voters of said county, in accordance with the eleventh section of said act incorporating the Rutherford Railway Construction Company, ratified by the general assembly of North Carolina on the sixth day of February, 1883, it is therefore ordered that the returns of said election be registered.”
The plaintiff further alleges and demands judgment as follows:
“(8) But complainants allege and show that prior to said election the books of registration of qualified voters were not opened at each or any of the election precincts in said county, as the law required, nor were the qualified voters of said county who had not theretofore registered, and those who had become qualified voters since the last registration, allowed an opportunity to register themselves, as by the law they were entitled to; nor at said election were any persons allowed to vote whose names did not appear upon the old registration books had and kept at said election precincts, there having been no registration of voters made or allowed since the election held in November, 1882, for members of the general assembly, and for other purposes.
“(10) Further complaining, the plaintiff alleges and shows that a majority of the qualified voters of said county at said election did not vote for ‘transfer’ and ‘subscription;’ for that the qualified voters in said county exceed three thousand, as the plaintiff is informed and believes, whereas the number that voted for ‘transfer’ was 1,493, and for ‘subscription,’ was 1,225 votes, being a minority of the qualified voters of the county.
“(11) Complainants further show that notwithstanding the fact that no books of registration were opened as aforesaid, and the qualified voters of the county allowed to register and vote in the way provided by the law, and notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the qualified voters of the county did not vote for ‘transfer’ and ‘subscription,’ yet said board of commissioners, in defiance of these facts and the law, proceeded to declare, as aforesaid, that the said election was carried for ‘transfer’ and ‘subscription’ by a majority of the qualified voters of said county.
“(12) That, in further consummation of their illegal purposes, the said board of commissioners did subscribe to the capital stock of the Rutherford Railway Construction Company, in the name of the county of Rutherford, the said fifty thousand dollars theretofore subscribed to the Rutherford & Spartanburg Railroad, and the further sum of fifty thousand dollars voted as aforesaid.
“Further complaining, the plaintiff alleges and shows that the defendant Frank Coxe, a citizen and resident of the county of Polk, was appointed by the board of commissioners the agent of the county, and the said bonds so signed by the chairman, to-wit, bonds to the amount of $100,000, were delivered to him to be paid to the said Rutherford Railway Construction Company as provided in section eleven of said charter.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barbee v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Wake County
...Com'rs, 107 N.C. 248, 12 S.E. 69; Rigsbee v. Durham, 99 N.C. 341, 6 S.E. 64; Rigsbee v. Durham, 98 N.C. 81, 3 S.E. 749; McDowell v. Const. Co., 96 N.C. 514, 2 S. E. 351; Smith v. Wilmington, 98 N.C. 343, 4 S.E. 489; Wood v. Oxford, 97 N.C. 227, 2 S.E. 653; Smallwriod v. New Bern, 90 N. C. 3......
-
Ashley v. Richard
... ... corporation, was upheld in the cases of McDowell v ... Massachusetts & S. Const. Co., 96 N.C. 514, 2 S.E. 351, ... and Goforth v. Rutherford Ry ... ...
-
States' Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections
... ... 554, 97 S.E. 478; Clark v ... Statesville, 139 N.C. 490, 52 S.E. 52; McDowell v ... Massachusetts & S. Construction Co., 96 N.C. 514, 2 S.E ... 351; Southerland v ... ' Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 ... Wheat., U.S., 518, 4 L.Ed. 629; N.C.Const. art. I, ... section 17 ... Here, ... however, the State Board of Elections ... ...
-
States' Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. Of Elections
...Williams v. County Commissioners, 176 N.C. 554, 97 S.E. 478; Clark v. Statesville, 139 N.C. 490, 52 S.E. 52; McDowell v. Massachusetts & S. Construction Co., 96 N.C. 514, 2 S.E. 351; Southerland v. Goldsboro, 96 N.C. 49, 1 S.E. 760. The Board has the authority to determine the registration ......