Brumley v. Baxter, 531.
Citation | 36 S.E.2d 281,225 N.C. 691 |
Decision Date | 17 December 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 531.,531. |
Parties | BRUMLEY. v. BAXTER et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Hubert E. Olive, Special Judge.
Action by J. C. Brumley, in behalf of himself and all other taxpayers in the City of Charlotte, against H. H. Baxter and others to restrain the City of Charlotte from executing a deed without monetary consideration conveying certain real property, owned by the city, to the Charlotte Veterans' Recreation Center. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Error.
This was an action to restrain the City of Charlotte from executing deed without monetary consideration conveying certain real property, owned by the City, to the Charlotte Veterans' Recreation Center, under authority of Chap. 460, Public Laws 1945, herein referred to as Senate Bill No. 154.
On the hearing below it was agreed that the plaintiff is a citizen, resident and taxpayer of the City of Charlotte; that the City of Charlotte has a population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants according to the last Federal census, and that defendant H. H. Baxter is the mayor, and Lillian R. Hoffman the clerk of the city.
The Act under authority of which the City of Charlotte proposes to execute the deed contains the following pertinent provisions: It declares that it is in the public interest that adequate recreational facilities be provided in cities of more than 100, 000 population for persons who have served or are serving in the armed forces of the United States in the present war, and if the governing bodies of such cities find there is lack of adequate recreational facilities, power is given for the appointment of five commissioners to act as Authority. The commissioners so appointed are directed to apply for a charter, setting out their appointment and the proposed name of the corporation, and to secure from the Secretary of State a certificate of incorporation. The boundaries of the Authority are declared to be the city limits and the area within ten miles from such limits. The commissioners are required to provide separate recreational facilities for white and colored. Provision is made for filling vacancies in membership of commission, and for reports. In the construction of the facilities, zoning and building laws are to be observed, but the property shall be exempt from taxation, and also exempt from the operation of Local Government Act or County Fiscal Control Act. Section 14 of the Act authorizes the City, in order to provide construction, repair or management of any Veterans' recreation project, to sell and convey without consideration or for a nominal consideration to an Authority within such City any real property, and bind itself to the performance and observance of the agreements and conditions attached thereto.
The conditions annexed to the deed which the City of Charlotte proposes to execute are that the Charlotte Veterans' Recreation Center shall have the right to convey in fee simple the property thus conveyed in exchange for other real property, the property so conveyed or that for which it may be exchanged to be operated and maintained under control of the Commissioners of the Veterans' Recreation Center in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is provided in the proposed deed that if the Charlotte Veterans' Recreation Center shall cease to exist or fail to maintain veteran's recreational facilities on the property, or if the commissioners determine at any time that the property is no longer needed for the purposes set forth in the Act, or that the number of veterans who wish to use the facilities offered is not sufficient to justify continuance of the project, then the property shall be sold by the commissioners and the net proceeds used to establish a home for the aged in Charlotte or for an increase in the charity wards of Charlotte Memorial Hospital.
By a vote of 7 to 2 the City Council of Charlotte adopted resolution directing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute deed for the Poplar Street property under authority of the Act for maintaining and operating a Veterans' Recreation Center in Charlotte, incorporating in the deed the terms and conditions above set out. The minority vote in the City Council was in opposition to the terms of the deed rather than the purpose of the conveyance.
Judgment was rendered that the Act of the General Assembly was valid and the Charlotte Veterans' Recreation Center a public corporation validly created; that thereunder the City of Charlotte had full power to execute the proposed deed without consideration upon the terms and conditions set out; and that section 14 of the Act was constitutional and valid. The plaintiff's prayer for restraining order was denied. The plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Robinson & Jones, of Charlotte, for plaintiff.
John D. Shaw, of Charlotte, for defendants.
The taxpayers' suit to restrain the proposed donation by the City of Charlotte of valuable real property for the purpose of providing recreational facilities for persons who are now serving in the armed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. State
...County, 85 Ky. 98, 2 S.W. 687, 690 (1887) (taxpayer suit to enjoin subscription of bonds for railroad purposes); Brumley v. Baxter, 225 N.C. 691, 36 S.E.2d 281, 286 (1945) (taxpayer suit to enjoin municipal grant of real property for use by military veterans); see also Gross v. Gates, 109 V......
-
Green v. Kitchin
...contrary to Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution because it is for a public purpose and 'in consideration of public services.' Brumley v. Baxter, supra; Hinton v. Lacy, 193 496, 137 S.E. 669. Finally, the plaintiff maintains that the expenditure in controversy was illegal under Article......
- Brumley v. Baxter
-
Lyman v. Adorno
...230, 175 N.W. 589, 7 A.L.R. 1617; State ex rel. Hart v. Clausen, 113 Wash. 570, 194 P. 793, 13 A.L.R. 580; Brumley v. Baxter, 225 N.C. 691, 696, 36 S.E.2d 281, 162 A.L.R. 930; State ex rel. Morris v. Handlin, 38 S.D. 550, 557, 162 N.W. 379. An interesting case is that of Bosworth v. Harp, 1......