Rodman v. Town Of Wash.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1898
• Citation: 30 S.E. 118,122 N.C. 39
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: RODMAN. v. TOWN OF WASHINGTON.

30 S.E. 118

122 N.C. 39

RODMAN.

v.TOWN OF WASHINGTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 17, 1898.

Statute—Enactment—Levy of School Tax.

A school tax is not a necessary expense of a town, under Const, art. 2, § 14, and article 7, § 7, providing for acts to authorize cities to levy special taxes above the constitutional limit for necessary expenses, without taking and enter ing the yeas and nays on the journals of the house and senate upon the passage of the act.

Appeal from superior court, Beaufort county; Brown, Judge.

Action by W. B. Rodman, for himself and others, against the town of Washington. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Small, for appellant.

W. B. Rodman and Shepherd & Busbee, for appellee.

FURCHES, J. The plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of the town of Washington, brings this action to restrain the defendant from collecting certain taxes levied for school purposes under an act of the general assembly of North Carolina, being chapter 343, Acts 1897. This act in terms authorizes the defendant to levy and collect a special tax, for school purposes, over and above the constitutional limitation; and under the provisions of said act the defendant has levied, and is proceeding to collect, 20 cents on the $100 of taxable property, and 60 cents on the taxable polls, within the corporate limits of said town. Plaintiff alleges that this tax is unlawful and void, and asks that its collection be restrained and enjoined. Plaintiff puts his claim for this relief upon two grounds: First, that the act under which defendant claims the right to levy and collect this tax is included in the provisions of article 2, § 14, and article 7, § 7, of the constitution of this state; that the yeas and nays were not taken and recorded on the journals of the house and senate upon its passage, as required by these sections; and for that reason the act under which defendant claims its authority to levy and collect this tax is unconstitutional and void. It was not contended on the argument for defendant that the yeas and nays had been taken and entered on the journals, as required by article 2, § 14, and article 7, § 7, of the constitution, but it was contended that this tax is a part of the necessary expense of the defendant town government, and does not fall under the requirements of article 2, § 14, and article 7, § 7, of the constitution. It not being contended by defendant that the yeas and nays were taken and entered on the journals upon the passage of this act providing for the levy and collection of the special tax which is above the constitutional limitation, it is void, unless it is for the necessary expenses of the defendant. Bank v....