Madry v. Town of Scotland Neck
| Decision Date | 23 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | 180. |
| Citation | 199 S.E. 618,214 N.C. 461 |
| Parties | MADRY v. TOWN OF SCOTLAND NECK. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Halifax County; W. H. S. Burgwyn Special Judge.
Action by A. W. Madry against the Town of Scotland Neck to recover the amount of a reward offered by defendant for furnishing information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of its police chief. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
A complaint in action against town for amount of reward offered thereby for furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction of murderer of its police chief, was bad on demurrer as showing on its face that plaintiff was seeking to enforce contract which was ultra vires and void.
Civil action to recover a reward in the sum of $500 offered by the defendant to the person furnishing information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of the chief of police of the defendant town.
The defendant demurred ore tenus to the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant excepted and appealed.
Stuart Smith, of Scotland Neck, and Geo. C. Green, of Weldon, for appellant.
George M. Fountain & Son, of Tarboro, for appellee.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a municipal corporation of the State of North Carolina; that its chief of police was murdered 16 February, 1936; that its duly appointed, elected and qualified officers offered a reward of $500 to the person who would furnish information leading to the arrest and conviction of the party or parties guilty of the murder; that the plaintiff thereafter furnished information to an officer of Halifax County which led to the arrest of two men, one of whom was duly convicted of the crime; that the plaintiff has duly filed his claim for said reward with the defendant, but that it has neglected and refused to pay same.
The complaint and the demurrer thereto present but one question for determination: May a North Carolina municipality, without express legislative authority, bind itself to pay a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a party who commits a felony within the corporate limits of the town?
A municipality is a creature of the Legislature and it can only exercise (1) the powers granted in express terms; (2) those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and (3) those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects of the corporation-not simply convenient, but only those which are indispensable, to the accomplishment of the declared objects of the corporation. City of Asheville v. Herbert, 190 N.C 732, 130 S.E. 861; State v. Gulledge, 208 N.C. 204, 179 S.E. 883. In exercising such powers the municipal corporation's authority to bind itself by contract is limited and it cannot contract any debt, except for necessary expenses, unless by vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein. N.C.Const. Art. 7, § 7.
The Legislature has conferred authority upon the Governor of the State to offer rewards under the limitations set out in the Statute, C.S. § 4554, Pub.Laws 1925, c. 275, § 6....
To continue reading
Request your trial