Evans v. Commissioners of Cumberland
| Citation | 89 N.C. 154 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Parties | JOSIAH EVANS v. COMMISSIONERS OF CUMBERLAND. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
MOTION for an injunction heard at Fall Term, 1883, of CUMBERLAND Superior Court, before McKoy, J.
The plaintiff appealed from the refusal of the judge to grant the injunction.
Mr. R. S. Huske, for plaintiff .
Mr. Z. B. Newton, for defendants .
The general assembly at its last session passed an act ratified and taking effect on March 8th, 1883, entitled “An act to enable the people of Cumberland county to establish a free bridge over the Cape Fear river at or near the town of Fayetteville, North Carolina,” the recital of the substance of which is necessary to a proper understanding of the case on appeal.
It directs the county commissioners, on petition from not less than five hundred voters presented on or before the first Monday in April, to submit the question of a free bridge to the qualified voters of the county at an election to be held on the first Thursday in May, and prescribes the manner in which it shall be conducted and the popular will ascertained.
Section five, so far as its provisions relate to the present inquiry, is in these words:
If it shall appear that a majority of the votes cast at such election were for “free bridge,” then the said board of county commissioners shall certify the same to the chairman of the board of justices of said county within five days of said meeting, and the chairman of the said board of justices shall call a joint meeting of the justices and commissioners of said county, to be held on the first Monday in June next following, which meeting shall make or cause to be made such contract or contracts as may be necessary for the speedy establishment of a free bridge across the Cape Fear river at Fayetteville, North Carolina: provided, that if the owners of the Clarendon bridge now across said river will agree to sell their said bridge and franchises, together with the right of way to and from said bridge, over or across any land they may own contiguous thereto, for a sum not to exceed thirty-five thousand dollars, then a purchase of the same shall be made by said board of justices and county commissioners; but if no agreement can be made, they are hereby authorized to make any contract necessary for the erection of a new bridge across said river at or near the town of Fayetteville.
The contract being entered into, the commissioners, if in their opinion deemed best, are empowered to issue coupon county bonds, bearing date January 1st, 1884, in sums not less than twenty-five nor more than five hundred dollars, at a rate of interest not exceeding seven per cent., and to mature at a period not beyond thirty years. The bonds are required not to be sold under par, and the coupons, as they become due, are receivable “in payment of taxes and other claims due to the county of Cumberland.” §6.
The next section authorizes and directs the annual levy of special taxes, as long as may be requisite, “sufficient to pay the coupons as they become due” and to provide a “sinking fund” to pay the principal as the bonds mature, not in any one year to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars.
If the commissioners decline to issue bonds, annual special taxes are authorized to be levied and collected, as long as necessary, which shall not in any one year be above “ten cents on the hundred dollars valuation and thirty cents on each taxable poll. §8.
It appears from the complaint and answer, which do not appear to differ in essential particulars, that an election was held on the day designated in the statute, wherein were cast one thousand six hundred and ninety-six votes for free bridge, and one thousand one hundred and forty-two votes for “no free bridge,” while the former, which favor the proposition, are conceded not to be a majority of the number of voters in the county.
The result being known, the joint meeting of the commissioners and justices contracted for the purchase of the bridge from the owners at the price of thirty-five thousand dollars, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Kitchin
... ... J. T. Maddrey, and its commissioners, Walker Campbell, W. A ... Pierce, C. R. Turner, and Pierce Johnson, who are parties ... Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N.C. 244; Evans v ... Com'rs, 89 N.C. 154; Cromartie v ... Com'rs, 87 N.C. 134; Satterthwaite v ... ...
- Moose v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Alexander County
-
Burgin v. Smith
...and not in the courts. Vaughan v. Commissioners, supra." In construing section 7, art. 7, Const. N. C., this court, in Evans v. Commissioners, 89 N.C. 154, "This provision leaves the Legislature free to confer upon municipal organizations the power to create debts and issue public securitie......
-
Mayo v. Town of Washington
...429, 23 S.E. 354, citing Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N.C. 244, and Satterthwaite v. Board of Com'rs of Beaufort Co., 76 N.C. 153; Evans v. Commissioners, 89 N.C. 154; v. Commissioners, 87 N.C. 134. (3) That for such "necessary expenses" the commissioners are not prohibited by section 7, art. 7, fr......