Bradshaw v. City of High Point

• Decision Date: 23 December 1909
• Citation: Bradshaw v. City of High Point, 151 N.C. 517, 66 S.E. 601 (N.C. 1909)
• Parties: BRADSHAW et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

66 S.E. 601

151 N.C. 517

BRADSHAW et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 23, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Biggs, Judge.

Action by William G. Bradshaw and others against the City of High Point. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a taxpayer and citizen of the city of High Point, against the defendant to enjoin it from issuing bonds to the amount of $30,000, the proceeds of the sale of which are to be used in paying a debt contracted for a necessary expense of said defendant. On October 1, 1909, the city of High Point entered into a contract with the United States Construction Company to extend and improve its sewer and water systems, agreeing to pay therefor the sum of $30,000, same to be paid in installments as provided in said contract, and immediately thereafter said construction company began said work, and the same will in a short time have been completed. The defendant not being able to provide for the payment for said work out of its funds in hand or current revenues, after having passed an ordinance in full compliance with the provisions of its charter, was preparing to issue and sell bonds to raise the funds necessary, when the plaintiff instituted this suit to restrain further action on the part of the city, alleging two reasons why said proposed issue of bonds would be unlawful First. Because the defendant had not complied with chapter 19 of the Private Laws of 1907 in holding an election on the proposed issue of bonds. Second. Because it has no authority to issue long time negotiable bonds for the purposes expressed in said ordinance and set out in the pleadings. His honor held the bonds are valid, and refused the motion for a restraining order. The plaintiff appealed.

G. S Bradshaw, for appellants.

Shaw & Hines and E. H. Farris, for appellee.

CLARK C.J.

The contract was for a public necessity, and therefore a valid indebtedness, and a popular vote was not necessary unless the charter or some statute required it. Fawcett v. Mt. Airy, 134 N.C. 125, 45 S.E. 1029, 63 L. R. A. 870, 101 Am. St. Rep. 825; Davis v. Fremont, 135 N.C. 538, 47 S.E. 671; Revisal 1908, § 2916 (6). The plaintiff relied upon chapter 19, p. 91, Priv. Laws 1907, which authorized an election upon a proposition to issue $125,000 in bonds for divers purposes, among them that of improving and extending its water plant and sewer system, aiding the construction of a railroad, and other purposes. Had that statute prohibited the issuance of bonds for water and sewerage, unless so voted, this would have rendered the issuance of these bonds invalid, unless the statute has been repealed (Wadsworth v. Concord, 133 N.C. 587, 45 S.E. 948; Robinson v. Goldsboro, 135 N.C. 382, 47 S.E. 462; Com'rs v. Webb, 148 N.C. 120, 61 S.E. 670), for the Constitution (article 8, § 4) places the control and restriction of the powers of municipal bodies in contracting debts in the General Assembly.

By chapter 395, p. 468, Laws 1909, the General Assembly enacted "An act to grant a new charter to the city of High Point repealing all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith." Section 12 of this act gave the city the fullest power to provide for a system of sewerage and waterworks. Section 27 (9) prescribes in detail the duties of the "Superintendent of Waterworks and Sewerage." Section 30 (10) is as...