Town of Andrews v. Clay County

Decision Date27 January 1931
Docket Number643.
PartiesTOWN OF ANDREWS et al. v. CLAY COUNTY et al.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Clay County; MacRae, Special Judge.

Action for injunction by Town of Andrews and others against Clay County and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

This is an action to restrain and enjoin the defendants, Clay county and the sheriff and tax collector of said county, from collecting or attempting to collect taxes levied by Clay county, for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929, on property located in said county and owned during said years by the plaintiff, town of Andrews, on the ground that said property was exempt during said years from taxation, under the provisions of section 5 of article 5 of the Constitution of North Carolina.

The town of Andrews is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of this state, and located in Cherokee county.

The property on which taxes were levied by the defendant, Clay county, for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929 consists of 205 acres of land. The said land was owned and used by the plaintiff during said years as the site of a power plant for the generation of electricity, which was transmitted over wires from said power plant in Clay county to the town of Andrews in Cherokee county and there used by said town of Andrews for lighting its streets and municipal buildings, and for distribution among the citizens of said town, for domestic and commercial purposes. The revenue derived from the distribution and sale of electricity to citizens of said town was used to pay the expense of maintaining and operating its electric light and power plant. The town of Andrews purchased the land in Clay county and constructed its power plant thereon under the authority of an act of the General Assembly of this state. It paid for said land and for the construction of said power plant out of funds raised by the issuance and sale of its municipal bonds.

The action was heard on motion of plaintiffs for judgment on the facts admitted in the pleadings as above stated. This motion was allowed.

From judgment declaring that the levy of taxes by the defendant Clay county, for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929, on the property described in the complaint, was illegal and void, and restraining and enjoining the defendants, permanently, from collecting or attempting to collect said taxes, or any part thereof, defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

R. L. Phillips, of Robbinsville, and J. B. Gray and W. C. Wakefield, both of Hayesville, for appellants.

Dillard & Hill, of Murphy, for appellees.

CONNOR J.

Section 5 of article 5 of the Constitution of North Carolina, adopted by the people of this state in 1868, is as follows:

"Property exempt from taxation. Property belonging to the State, or to municipal corporations, shall be exempt from taxation.
"The General Assembly may exempt cemeteries and property held for educational, scientific, literary, charitable, or religious purposes; also wearing apparel, arms for muster, household and kitchen furniture, the mechanical and agricultural implements of mechanics and farmers; libraries and scientific instruments, or any other personal property, to a value not exceeding three hundred dollars."

The Machinery Acts enacted by the General Assembly of this state (Pub. Acts 1929, c. 344, § 304), under which property, both real and personal, was assessed for taxation for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929, each, contain a section in words as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Town of Warrenton v. Warren County
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 1939
    ... ... Court in the instant case ...          The ... instant case is distinguishable from Town of Andrews v ... Clay County, 200 N.C. 280, 156 S.E. 855, and Town of ... Weaverville v. Hobbs, Com'r, 212 N.C. 684, 194 S.E ... 860, relied upon by the ... ...
  • Town of Weaverville v. Hobbs
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 5 Enero 1938
    ...& N.C. R. R. v. Com'rs of Carteret County, 75 N.C. 474." The majority opinion relies largely on the obiter dicta in Andrews v. Clay County, 200 N.C. 280, 156 S.E. 855. This dicta was disapproved in Board of Financial v. Henderson County, 208 N.C. 569, 571, 572, 181 S.E. 636, 101 A.L.R. 783.......
  • Bank of Miles City v. Custer County
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1933
    ... ... 626; ... Corporation Commission v. Oxford Seminary, etc., 160 ... N.C. 582, 76 S.E. 640; Town of Andrews v. Clay ... County, 200 N.C. 280, 156 S.E. 855; Engstad v. Grand ... Forks County, ... ...
  • Town of Benson v. Johnston County
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 1936
    ... ... business purposes." ...          In the ... above case we distinguished the case of Andrews v. Clay ... County, 200 N.C. 280, 156 S.E. 855, and said at page 574 ... of 208 N.C., 181 S.E. 636, 639, 101 A.L.R. 783: "The ... town of Andrews ... ...
  • 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