Adams v. City Of Durham

• Decision Date: 04 March 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 329.)
• Citation: 126 S.E. 611,189 N.C. 232
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. CITY OF DURHAM.

126 S.E. 611

(189 N. C. 232)

ADAMS et al.

v.CITY OF DURHAM.

(No. 329.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 1925.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Public Purpose.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Cranmer, Judge.

Civil action by Dr. C. A. Adams and others, citizens and taxpayers, against the City of Durham, to restrain expenditure of certain moneys in the erection of a city auditorium.From the judgment, dissolving a preliminary restraining order and dismissing the action, plaintiffs appeal.Affirmed.

R. H. Sykes, of Durham, for appellants.

S. c. Chambers, of Durham, for appellee.

HOKE, C. J.From the facts properly presented at the hearing and deemed pertinent to the inquiry, it appears that the city of Durham has now on hand a fund amounting to $250,000, the proceeds of the sale of a city lot on which was erected a building used forcity governmental offices, an Academy of Music, etc., the said fund consisting of cash to the amount of $150,000 and the remainder in solvent and secured purchase-money notes payable in May, 1925; that the city owns a desirable lot, accessible and centrally located, on which they have constructed the governmental and administrative offices of the city, and on the remainder of said lot it is proposed and intended to erect, with this $250,000, a public auditorium for the convenience of the city and its inhabitants, and for the purpose of public meetings, school commencement exercises, lectures, and "incidentally for operas and dramatic performances, etc."And on these factswe can see no valid objection to the proposed expenditure.

The power of the city authorities to make the sale of the former lot has been directly approved by this court in Harris v. Durham, 185 N. C. 571, 117 S. E. 801.The erection of a public auditorium, while it may not be a necessary expense, is to our minds undoubtedly a public purpose, and it has been so directly held in well-considered cases on the subject.Wheelock v. City of Lowell, 196 Mass. 220, 81 N. E. 977, 124 Am. St. Rep. 543, 12 Ann. Cas. 1109;Denver v. Hallett, 34 Colo. 393, 83 P. 1066.And the city authorities, having funds already on hand, clearly have the right to erect such a building in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them, both by the general law and provisions of the charter applicable.C. S. §§ 2673, 2786, and 2787, subsecs. 3 and 4.

The only objection seriously urged against the proposed measure is that the...