Hood v. Sutton

Citation175 N.C. 98,94 S.E. 686
Decision Date23 December 1917
Docket Number(No. 233.)
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
PartiesHOOD et al. v. SUTTON et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lenoir County; Stacy, Judge.

Action by W. D. Hood and others against P. I. Sutton and others. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff in his own behalf and in behalf of other taxpayers and residents of the city of Kins-ton to restrain the holding of an election and the issuing of bonds in the sum of $150,-000 for school purposes in the Kinston graded school district; plaintiffs contending that there is no authority for holding the election or issuing the bonds: (1) For that the election has been ordered by the aldermen of Kinston, instead of by the board of commissioners of the county, on petition of the board of education. (2) For that there is no legislative authority to issue bonds in excess of $25,000. The defendants claimed the right to hold the election and to issue the bonds under chapter 81 of the Public Laws of 1915. A temporary restraining order issued, and upon the hearing it was continued until the final determination of the action, and defendants appealed.

Loftin, Dawson & Manning, of Kinston, for appellants.

R. A. Whitaker, of Kinston, for appellees.

ALLEN, J. The Kinston graded school district was established under authority of chapter 96 of the Public Laws of 1899; the territory included in the district being then coterminous with the corporate limits of the city of Kinston. This act was ratified by a vote of the people of Kinston, under a provision in the act requiring the election to be held under the same rules and regulations as for the election of a mayor. Under chapter 225 of the Private Laws of 1915, the district was enlarged to include much territory outside of the corporate limits of Kinston. This last act was also ratified by a vote of the people at an election held at the time of electing municipal officers, and by the same judges and registrars, as required by the act. There is no provision in either act for issuing bonds or for hold-ing any election, except one for the ratification of the acts, and the defendants must show legislative authority elsewhere for their action in ordering an election and for issuing the bonds. They rely on chapter 81 of the Public Laws of 1915, as amended by chapter 130 of the Laws of 1917, which are recited in the resolution adopted by the aldermen when the election was called, as their authority.

The act of 1917 is not material to the present inquiry, as it does not deal with elections or issuing bonds, and an examination of the act of 1915 shows clearly that it refers only to incorporated towns and cities, and does not purport to deal with districts, such as the Kinston graded school district, which include municipal corporations and territory outside of the corporate limits. The act of 1915 is entitled:

"An act to authorize the board of aldermen or other governing body of towns and cities to issue, upon approval by vote of the people, bonds for purchasing sites, erecting buildings, etc., for school purposes."

The act provides in section 1:

"That whenever it shall be necessary in the judgment of the board of aldermen or other duly constituted authority of any incorporated town or city in the state, which is in charge of its finances, to purchase lands or buildings or to erect additional buildings for school purposes, said board of aldermen or other authority is authorized and empowered to issue for said purposes in the name of said town or city, bonds, " etc.

In section 3:

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Spriggs v. Clark
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 6 Octubre 1932
    ...... Fletcher v. Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41, 37 N.E. 683, 42 Am. St. Rep. 220, 25 L. R. A. 143; Young v. Beckham, 115. Ky. 246, 72 S.W. 1092, 1094; Hood v. Sutton, 175. N.C. 98, 94 S.E. 686; McAlester v. Milwee, 31 Okla. 620, 122 P. 173, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576; Copeland v. Olsmith, 33 Okla. ......
  • Coble v. Board of Com'rs of Guilford County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 8 Noviembre 1922
    ...... coterminous with the territory to be taxed. Hill v. Lenoir County, 176 N.C. 572, 97 S.E. 498; Hood v. Sutton, 175 N.C. 100, 94 S.E. 686; Faison v. Com'rs, 171 N.C. 415, 88 S.E. 761, Ann. Cas. 1917E,. 72; Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N.C. 459, 88 ......
  • Coble v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Guilford County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 8 Noviembre 1922
    ...are coterminous with the territory to be taxed. Hill v. Lenoir County, 176 N. C. 572, 97 S. E. 498; Hood v. Sutton, 175 N. C. 100, 94 S. E. 686; Faison v. Com'rs, 171 N. C. 415, 88 S. E. 761, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 72; Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N. C. 459, 88 S. E. 640, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 916. The ques......
  • Hill v. Lenoir County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 4 Diciembre 1918
    ...state for the purpose of benefiting or raising money for another." Faison v. Com'rs, 171 N.C. 415, 88 S.E. 763, approved in Hood v. Sutton, 175 N.C. 100, 94 S.E. 686. C.J. (dissenting). The election was held by virtue of chapter 71, Laws 1911, and there is no suggestion of any irregularity ......
  • 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