Board of Trustees of Youngsville Tp. v. Webb

• Decision Date: 31 May 1911
• Parties: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YOUNGSVILLE TP. v. WEBB.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

71 S.E. 520

155 N.C. 379

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YOUNGSVILLE TP. v. WEBB.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 31, 1911

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Webb, Judge.

Controversy submitted without action, under Revisal 1905, § 803, between the Board of Trustees of Youngsville Township and J. L. Webb. From a judgment for the latter, the former appeals. Reversed.

A statute creating a board of trustees of a township for the control of the roads of the township, and empowering the board to issue bonds of the township for road improvements is not objectionable because the county commissioners are directed to levy and collect taxes to pay the bonds.

A statute creating a board of trustees constituted a body corporate to control the roads of a township, with power to issue bonds for the construction and improvement of public roads of the township, without submitting the question of issuance of bonds to a vote of the people of the township, is a valid exercise by the Legislature over local governmental agencies, and bonds issued by the board are valid.

Controversy submitted without action, under section 803, Revisal 1905. It was properly made to appear that on the -- day of March 1911, the defendants contracted with the plaintiff for the purchase of $10,000 of Youngsville township road bonds, to be issued under the authority of an act of the General Assembly of 1911, entitled "An act to provide good roads in Youngsville township, Franklin county," which said act was read three several times, and the yeas and nays on the second and third readings duly entered on the journals of each house of the General Assembly, and was ratified on the 24th of January, 1911. Said bonds were to be dated April 1, 1911, to mature April 1, 1941, and were to bear 6 per cent. interest, payable semiannually, and for them the defendants agreed to pay par and accrued interest, but this agreement of purchase was made subject to the legality of the issue. The proceeds from the sale of the bonds were to be used solely for the construction and maintenance of public roads in said Youngsville township. The plaintiff board of road trustees offered to deliver said bonds issued in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale and of the act authorizing same, and in prospect of such sale have incurred debts and entered into obligations for the working of the roads of said township; but the defendants now decline and refuse to accept said bonds and to pay for same, on the ground that they are invalid and not a legal liability of said Youngsville township, for that the question of their issue was not submitted to and ratified by a vote of a majority of the qualified voters in the township. Omitting the parts of the said act "To provide good roads in Youngsville township" giving the detailed instructions for the working of roads, the sections of said act material to this controversy are as follows:

"Whereas, under the provisions of chapter 234, Public Laws of 1909, an election was duly held and carried in Youngsville township, Franklin county, on May 11, 1910, for building good roads, and the levy of a tax of 30 cents on the $100 worth of property and of 90 cents on the poll in said township; and whereas, at a mass meeting of the citizens of said township, held prior to said election, the provisions of this bill were discussed and unanimously endorsed:

"The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

"Section 1. That R. C. Underwood, C. C. Winston, J. F. Mitchell, L. C. Mitchiner, G. C. Patterson, J. C. Winston, C. W. Roberts, D. W. Spivey, and C. A. Garner are hereby appointed a board of trustees for the public roads of Youngsville township in Franklin county. The first three shall hold the said position of trustees for six years, the next three for four years and the last three for two years. At the expiration of the terms of any, their successors shall be elected for six years by the county board of commissioners of Franklin county. ***

"Sec. 2. That the said board of trustees and their successors shall be and are hereby constituted a body corporate by the name and style of 'The Board of Road Trustees of Youngsville Township,' and by that name may sue and be sued, make contracts *** and exercise such other rights and privileges as are incident to other municipal corporations.

"Sec. 3. That it shall be the duty of said board of trustees to take the control and management of the roads of said Youngsville township, and said trustees are hereby vested with all the rights and powers for such control and management as are now vested in and exercised by the board of county commissioners of Franklin county and the road supervisors of Youngsville township. ***

"Sec. 9. That the said board of trustees shall be, and are hereby authorized and empowered to issue bonds of said Youngsville township, to be styled 'Youngsville Township Road Bonds,' to an amount not to exceed $25,000, of such denominations and of such proportions as said board may deem advisable, bearing interest from the date of issue thereof at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent. per annum, with interest coupons attached, payable annually or semiannually as may be deemed best--and the principal thereof payable or redeemable at such time or times, not exceeding forty years from date thereof; and the said bonds may be issued at such time or times and in such amount or amounts as may be deemed best to meet the expenditures provided for in this act. The liability for the payment of said bonds shall be attached to and imposed upon the political division of Franklin county known as Youngsville township as constituted at the time of the ratification of this act.

"Sec. 10. That for the purpose of providing for the payment of said bonds and the interest thereon and for the construction, improvement and maintenance of the roads of said township, the board of county commissioners shall annually and at the time of levying the county taxes levy and lay a special tax on all persons and property subject to taxation within the limits of said Youngsville township of not less than fifteen cents and not more than thirty cents on the $100 assessed valuation of property and not less than 45 cents and not more than 90 cents on each taxable poll.

"Sec. 11. That all funds derived from the sale of any bonds *** shall be used for the purpose of constructing and improving the public roads in said township, the purchase of such material, machinery and implements and the employment of such officers and labor as may be found necessary in the carrying out of this work. ***

"Sec. 16. That this act shall be in force from and after its ratification."

The plaintiff contends that, under the act of the Legislature, Youngsville township is a municipal corporation; that maintaining the public roads is one of the necessary expenses of such corporation, and that no vote is necessary for the validity of the bonds issued for that purpose, and ask for judgment against the defendants.

The defendants contend that a vote for such an issue by a majority of the qualified voters was necessary, and ask to go without day.

Upon these facts the court entered judgment as follows: "This cause coming on to be heard upon the statement of facts agreed upon, and the court having considered the matter, after hearing arguments on both sides, the court is of opinion that the bonds referred to in said statement of facts are invalid for the reason that said bonds were not authorized by a majority of the qualified voters of said township at an election called and held for the purpose of obtaining their consent thereto. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged that said bonds are invalid and void, and that the plaintiff have and recover nothing of the defendant, and that they pay the costs of this action."

Bickett & White, for appellant.

HOKE J.

The provisions of our Constitution applicable to the question presented and authoritative decisions construing statutes of similar import are against the ruling of the lower court by which these bonds were declared invalid.

Thus in Jones v. Commissioners of Madison County, 137 N.C. 579-596, 50 S.E. 291, 297, speaking to the action of counties in matters governmental and the power of the Legislature over them in this respect, the court said: "In the exercise of ordinary governmental functions they are simply agencies of the state constituted for the convenience of local administration in certain portions of the state's territory, and in the exercise of such functions they are subject to almost unlimited Legislative control except when restricted by constitutional provision" --citing Hamilton v. Miguels, 7 Ohio St. 109; 1 Dillon on Mun. Cor. § 23; Smith's Law of Municipal Corporations, § 10; People v. Flagg, 46 N.Y. 401; Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 118, 50 Am. Rep. 517; Philadelphia v. Fox, 64 Pa. 169; Locomotive Co. v. Emigrant Co., 164 U.S. 559-576, 17 S.Ct. 188, 41 L.Ed. 552; and authorities from our own court, Tate v. Commissioners, 122 N.C. 812, 30 S.E. 352; White v. Commissioners, 90 N.C. 437, 47 Am. Rep. 534; Mills v. Williams, 33 N.C. 558; and many others could be cited, notably with us McCormac v. Commissioners, 90 N.C. 441. On this subject in Mills v. Williams it was held: "The Legislature has the constitutional power to repeal an act establishing a county. It has the same power to consolidate, as to divide, counties; the exercise of the power in both cases being upon considerations of public expediency."

2. "The purpose of making all corporations is the public good. The only substantial difference between corporations is that in some cases they are erected by the mere will of the Legislature; there being no other party interested or concerned, and these are...