City Of Greensboro v. Stringfellow

Decision Date18 April 1905
Citation138 N.C. 181,50 S.E. 589
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesCITY OF GREENSBORO. v. SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—BOND ISSUE—SUBMISSION TO POPULAR VOTE—NECESSITY.

Bonds issued in pursuance of the act of 1903 (Priv. Laws 1903, p. 133, c. 80), authorizing a certain city to issue and dispose of bonds to provide the city with a waterworks plant and sewerage system, and to enable it to grade and pave its streets, are issued for necessary expenses, and are not within the provision of Const, art. 7, § 7, requiring a popular vote for the creation of a debt other than for the necessary expenses of a municipal corporation.

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

Controversy, submitted without action, between the city of Greensboro and Scott & Stringfellow. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Appeal by defendants from judgment of Shaw, J., at chambers, upon a controversy submitted without action. By chapter 80, p. 133, Priv. Laws 1903, the city of Greensboro was authorized to issue its bonds for an amount not exceeding $250,000, to run not less than 30 years and not more than 50 years, and to bear no greater rate of interest than 5 per cent, and containing a provisionthat the bonds should not be sold, hypothecated, or disposed of for less than their par value. It was further provided in said act that the proceeds of said bonds should be used for the following purposes, and none other: Building, constructing, and enlarging a waterworks plant to furnish water for the use of the city and its citizens; building, constructing, and maintaining a sewerage system; grading, paving, and macadamizing the streets of the city. Said act was not to become operative until after it had been submitted to an election of the voters of the city of Greensboro, and approved by a majority thereof. The act authorizing said issue of bonds was read on three separate days in each house of the General Assembly, and the ayes and noes entered upon the journals, as required by the Constitution. Subsequent to the passage of this act the board of aldermen of the city of Greensboro passed a resolution by which it was decided that said bonds should run for 50 years, and bear interest at the rate of 4 per centum per annum; and, for the purpose of authorizing said issue, an election was called to be held in accordance with the laws of the state of North Carolina and the charter of the city of Greensboro. Thereafter notice of election was published as required by law and the charter of the city of Greensboro, which said notice stated the time and place of holding said election, and the amount of bonds to be issued for each purpose, but made no reference whatever to the rate of interest said bonds should bear. Thereafter the Legislature of North Carolina, at its session of 1905, passed an act, the preamble of which set forth the provisions of the act of 1903 in regard to the selling of the said bonds at not less than their par value, and further recited that it was impossible for the city of Greensboro to sell said bonds at par unless said city pay a commission brokerage to the party effecting said sale, but that, by paying a commission brokerage...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Henderson v. City of Wilmington
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1926
    ... ... market house, jail or guardhouse are necessary expenses ... McLin v. New Bern, 70 N.C. 12; Fawcett v. Mt ... Airy, supra; Greensboro v. Scott [50 S.E. 589] 138 ... N.C. 181; Com'rs v. Webb [61 S.E. 670] 148 ... N.C. 122; Hightower v. Raleigh [65 S.E. 279] 150 ... N.C. 569; ... ...
  • Purser v. Ledbetter
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1946
    ...Airy, 134 N.C. 125, 45 S.E. 1029, 63 L.R.A. 870, 101 Am.St.Rep. 825; Water Co. v. Trustees, 150 N.C. 171, 63 S.E. 742; sewerage: Greensboro v. Scott, supra, Bradshaw City of High Point, 151 N.C. 517, 66 S.E. 601; market house: Smith v. City of Newbern, 70 N.C. 14, 16 Am.Rep. 766; Swinson v.......
  • Ramsey v. Rollins, 176
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1957
    ...Reed v. Howerton Engineering Co., 188 N.C. 39, 123 S.E. 479; Swindell v. Town of Belhaven, 173 N.C. 1, 91 S.E. 369; City of Greensboro v. Scott, 138 N.C. 181, 50 S.E. 589; Davis v. Fremont, 135 N.C. 538, 47 S.E. The mere fact that the General Assembly has now delegated the authority to coun......
  • Horton v. Redevelopment Commission of High Point, 599
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1963
    ...64, 67 S.E. 173; providing a city with a waterworks plant, a sewerage system, and for grading and paving its streets, Greensboro v. Scott, 138 N.C. 181, 50 S.E. 589; Bradshaw v. High Point, 151 N.C. 517, 66 S.E. 601; a market house, Swinson v. Mount Olive, 147 N.C. 611, 61 S.E. 569; a munic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT