Trull v. The Bd. of Comm'rs of Madison Cnty.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: W. R. TRULL and VAN BROWN v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS of MADISON COUNTY.

72 N.C. 388

W. R. TRULL and VAN BROWN

v.THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS of MADISON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1875.

In order to pay debts coutracted prior to the adoption of the Constitution, taxes may be levied by the County Commissioners, without regard to the Constitutional limitation, or equation; but in regard to new debts, both must be observed.

( Street v. Commissioners of Craven, 70 N. C. Rep. 164; Maury v. Commissioners of Montgomery, 71 N. C. Rep. 486, cited and approved.)

This was an application for an INJUNCTION against the Commissioners of MADISON county, heard before his Honor Judge Watts, at Fall Term, 1874, of the Superior Court of said county.

The plaintiffs, for themselves and for others, the tax-payers of Madison, allege in their complaint, the foundation of their application for a restraining order, that on the 5th day of July, 1874, the defendants levied upon the property of the citizens of the county, a tax of $1.60 on the $100 worth of said property; and insisting that such taxes should by law have been levied at their regular meeting, on the 1st of the preceding February.

The plaintiffs further allege, that the taxes so levied, are more than double the State tax, and more than $2 on the $300 worth of property, being levied without regard to the equation prescribed and the limitation contained in the Constitution. They therefore pray for an order restraining the defendants, &c.

In their affidavit, the plaintiffs state specifically the debts, for the payment of which much of the taxes levied was to be appropriated, contending that they were new debts, contracted since the adoption of the Constitution.

In answer to the complaint, one of the Board files the following affidavit:

“______ the former Board of Commissioners,” on the 2d day of June, 1874, as appears from the records of said Board, levied a tax of $1.60 on the $100 worth of property, and eighty cents on each poll in the county for county purposes. It is stated on said records--the minute book of said Board--that said tax is for the following purposes, although on the tax lists subsequently placed in the hands of the tax collector by said Board, it does not appear for what purposes the said tax was levied, no part of the said $1.60 on the $100 worth of property being specially set apart for any special purpose, to-wit:

27 cents on the $100 to pay for the Court-house.

28 cents on the $100 to pay E. Sluder's claims.

35 cents on the $100 to pay the Young judgment.

10 cents on the $100 to pay White, Nelson & Gudger.

33 1/3 cents on the $100 to pay instanter claims.

27 2/3 cents on the $100 to pay for general county purposes.

The debt due for the Court-house was contracted prior to the adoption of the State Constitution, and the tax of 27 cents aforesaid is not more than sufficient to pay the same; the claims of E. Sluder are founded upon claims surrendered to the Board of Commissioners on the 8th day of October, 1872, upon the compromise of a suit then pending against said Board for the recovery of the same, and the claims surrendered, and for which claims were issued on the said 8th day of October, were created, a portion of them before, and a portion of them after the adoption of the Constitution of the State, as this affiant is informed; the Young judgment was recovered upon claims for jail fees, witness and jury tickets, the fees of clerks and other officers in criminal cases, &c., a part having been contracted before the adoption of the Constitution and a part afterwards, as this affiant is informed; the claim or judgment of White,...