Wilson v. City of Charlotte
| Decision Date | 11 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | 420-C. |
| Citation | 175 S.E. 306,206 N.C. 856 |
| Parties | WILSON v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Shaw, Emergency Judge.
Action by T. C. Wilson, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers of the City of Charlotte, against the City of Charlotte, a municipal corporation. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
The plaintiff is a citizen and taxpayer of Charlotte. The city council for the city of Charlotte at a regular meeting on February 4, 1934, adopted a resolution reciting that "the proper training and education of the personnel of the fire department in the use of all fire fighting appliances makes it essential that a drill tower be erected." Thereupon it was resolved that the city make application to the local government commission for authority to issue bonds of the city in the sum of $17,500, the proceeds thereof to be used for the construction and equipping of a modern drill tower. It was further resolved that, if the proposal be approved by the local government commission, application be made to the Federal Public Works Administration for a loan of $17,500, "including the grant, that the City issue its bonds therefor, and that the proceeds therefrom be used in the construction and equipment of a modern drill tower."
The evidence disclosed that the proposed drill tower would be a six-story building, "25 feet by 46 feet inside," etc.
The plaintiff secured a temporary restraining order prohibiting the issuance of the bonds, and, at the hearing, a jury trial was waived by the parties, and it was stipulated that the court should find the facts and render judgment. The court found, in substance, that the plaintiff was a freeholder and the defendant a municipal corporation, operating under a form of government known as plan D, with power to pass ordinances and "to provide for the payment of any existing indebtedness and of any obligation that may be made from time to time by the City," etc. The bond ordinance was recited together with the fact that the city of Charlotte had a population of 80,000 people, maintaining a fire department "composed of members who devoted their full time to protecting the said City against fires," and that there are no funds available for the construction of such tower except such as were to be derived from the proposed bond issue. The court further found that the question of issuing said bonds had never been submitted to the qualified voters of Charlotte, and that, unless restrained, the city would proceed to issue said bonds.
It is further recited: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Kitchin
... ... in its broadest terms, this case presents this problem: Does ... a city or town possess authority in law to expend moneys ... raised by taxation in specially training its ... resulting injury to person or property. ' Millar v ... Town of Wilson, 222 N.C. 340, 23 S.E.2d 42, 43 ... This ... Court has uniformly held that ... of the people. Sing v. City of Charlotte, 213 N.C ... 60, 195 S.E. 271; Palmer v. Haywood County, 212 N.C ... 284, 193 S.E. 668, 113 ... ...
-
Hughes v. Oliver
... ... the Virginia-Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank of Elizabeth ... City, N. C., and which he alleges he purchased on 1 ... November, [228 N.C. 683] 1932, for a valuable ... support the judgment entered below. Wilson v ... Charlotte, 206 N.C. 856, 175 S.E. 306; Efird v ... Smith, 208 N.C. 394, 395, 180 S.E ... ...
-
Horton v. Redevelopment Commission of High Point, 599
...v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 1, 36 S.E.2d 803; a chamber of commerce, Ketchie v. Hedrick, supra; a drill tower for firemen, Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N.C. 856, 175 S.E. 306. See also, Wilson v. High Point, The ultimate result, which our Urban Redevelopment Law, G.S. § 160-454 et seq., seeks to achie......
-
Cole v. City of Asheville, 6828SC400
...of commerce, Ketchie v. Hedrick, supra, (186 N.C. 392, 119 S.E. 767, 31 A.L.R. 491); a drill tower for firemen, Wilson v. (City of) Charlotte, 206 N.C. 856, 175 S.E. 306.' In Vance County v. Royster, supra, the Supreme Court in an opinion by Lake, J., held that the expenditures of tax money......