Wharton v. City Of Greensboro

• Decision Date: 14 December 1907
• Citation: Wharton v. City Of Greensboro, 146 N.C. 356, 59 S.E. 1043 (N.C. 1907)
• Parties: WHARTON. v. CITY OF GREENSBORO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

59 S.E. 1043

146 N.C. 356

WHARTON.

v.CITY OF GREENSBORO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 14, 1907.

1. Municipal Corporations—Public Debt-Power to Contract — Statutory Provisions—Repeal.

The amended charter of Greensboro, enacted by the General Assembly of 1907 (section 100), provides that the board of aldermen may issue bonds only after they have passed an ordinance by a three-fourths vote of the entire board at two separate regular meetings, and submitted the question to the vote of the people, etc. By an amendment to the section, adopted at the same session, the board should not have the power to create any indebtedness unless authorized to do so by an election called in a specified manner, provided that nothing therein contained should be construed to prevent or forbid the board to incur reasonable liabilities, which might be discharged out of current revenues, etc. Revisal 1905, § 2977, prohibits any city from contracting any debt for special purposes exceeding in the aggregate 10 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the property therein. Held, that the statutes are not inconsistent, and the limitations of the general law were not repealed by the charter provision.

2. Same—Abridgment op Power—Authority of Legislature.

Municipal corporations are but instrumentalities of the state for the administration of local government, and their powers may be enlarged, abridged, or entirely withdrawn, at the pleasure of the Legislature.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 30, Municipal Corporations, § 156.]

3. Same — Constitutional and Statutory Provisions—Conflict.

Const. N. C. art. 7, § 7, providing that no municipal corporation shall contract any debt except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein, does not conflict with the limitation imposed by Revisal 1905, § 2977, providing that municipal corporations shall not contract any debt for the construction of railroads or the support and maintenance of internal improvements, or for any special purpose whatsoever, to an extent exceeding 10 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the property therein.

4. Same — Issue of Bonds — Funding Valid Indebtedness.

Bonds issued by the board of aldermen of a city, to fund a floating debt contracted for legitimate necessary expenses of the city government, are not issued for a special purpose, within the meaning of Revisal 1905, § 2977, prohibiting a city from contracting any debt, etc., for any special purpose to an extent exceeding 10 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the property therein, and are valid notwithstanding Const. N. C. art. 7, § 7, prohibiting municipal corporations from contracting debts except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of a majority of the qualified voters.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 36, Municipal Corporations, § 1905.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Long, Judge.

Action by H. W. Wharton against the city of Greensboro to enjoin the issue of bonds. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

A. M. Scales, for appellant.

Thos. J. Shaw, for appellee.

BROWN, J. The allegations of fact set out in the complaint are all admitted by the answer, and from these it appears that the bonded indebtedness of the city of Greensboro, exclusive of the proposed issue, is $700,-000, in addition to a floating indebtedness of $125,000; that the present assessed tax valuation of all real and personal property within said city is $7,736, 490; that at the time of the election authorizing the issue of bonds the total tax valuation was $0,500, 000. It appears that the board of aldermen, on December 28, 1906, passed an ordinance in the manner required by the city charter, authorizing the issue of $30,000 of bonds for the special purpose of "equipping, altering and furnishing a school building or buildings for the city." This bond issue was duly approved by a majority of the qualified voters at an election held March 12, 1907. On July 13, 1907, the board duly adopted an ordinance authorizing the issue of $125,000 in bonds, which issue was duly approved at an election held according to law on October 8, 1907. It is admitted that the purpose of issuing the $125,000 in bonds is to pay off the floating debt of the city. This floating debt, it is admitted, is evidenced by notes issued by the board without an election, for the building of streets, improvement of waterworks already owned by the city, and other actually necessary expenses of running the municipal government. It is admitted that the proposed issue of bonds exceeds the limit fixed by law upon the cities and towns of the state as embodied in the Revisal of 1905, which reads as follows: "Sec. 2977. Limited to ten per centof assessed values. It shall be unlawful for any city or town to contract any debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit for the construction of railroads, the support or maintenance of internal improvements or for any special purpose whatsoever, to an extent exceeding in the aggregate ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of the real and personal property situated in such city or town."

The defendant contends that its amended charter, enacted by the General...