Wilson v. The Bd. of Aldermen of the City of Charlotte
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 74 N.C. 748 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOSEPH WILSON and others v. THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE. |
The Board of Aldermen of the City of Charlotte, under the amendments to the charter of said city, passed by the General Assembly the 25th of January, 1872, has the power to levy an ad valorem tax on the bonds, solvent credits and stock in incorporated companies held and owned by the resident citizens of said city, and also to tax their several incomes.
Said Board of Aldermen is not prohibited by sec. 7, Art. IV, of the Constitution, from levying a tax on the taxable property of the city, without submitting the same to the qualified voters of said city, for the purpose of paying the necessary expenses of the city government, and paying the interest on certain bonds heretofore issued to pay such necessary expenses. Nor do secs. 24 and 25 of the charter of said city prohibit the levying such tax.
( Broadnax v. Groom, 64 N. C. Rep. 244; Mitchell v. School Commiitee, 71 N. C. Rep. 400; Pullen v. Commissioners of Raleigh, 68 N. C. Rep. 451; Lilly v. Commissioners of Cumberland, 69 N. C. Rep. 300; Pippen v. Ellison, 12 Ired. 61, cited and approved.)
This was a CONTROVERSY, submitted without action, to his Honor Judge Schenck, at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of MECKLENBURG county, and determined upon the following facts:
Certain persons, citizens and residents of the city of Charlotte, who are tax payers, being advised that they are not subject to be taxed on account of debts and securities for money held by them, and lately demanded for the year 1875, having proposed to the Board of Aldermen of said city to submit the matter in controversy, without action, upon a case agreed--the said Joseph H. Wilson representing himself and other citizens of said city, from whom the said tax has been demanded, on the one part, and the Board of Aldermen of the city of Charlotte, on the other part, submit the controversy on the following statement of facts.
I. The Board of Aldermen of the city of Charlotte, in the early part of the year, 1874, passed an ordinance levying taxes for city purposes, for the said year, 1874. That by the 6th section of said ordinance, it is enacted as follows:
“There shall be an ad valorem tax of seventy-five (75) cents on one hundred (100) dollars of the assessed valuation of all real and personal property within the city; and the like tax upon the real value of all bonds, stock or other investments in banks, National, State or private, railroads and other incorporated companies; and a like tax on cash on hand or deposit, and on solvent credits, provided, however, that he or they may deduct from the amount of debts owing to him, the amount owing to him, and the residue only shall be liable to taxation.”
That said Wilson and others have paid the taxes assessed by said city upon their property, with the exception of that assessed upon their solvent credits, stocks and money on hand.
II. That by the terms of the last mentioned ordinance, the tax-payers of the city were required to make returns, on oath, to the city Clerk and Treasurer of all property, and other subjects of taxation embraced within the provisions of the said ordinance, and owned by the said tax-payers respectively, on the 1st day of Febrnary, 1874; and of their respective incomes received by them during the fiscal year immediately preceding the said 1st day of February, 1874, which said return was required to be made within thirty days after the 1st day of June, 1874.
III. That on the said 1st day of February, 1874, the said Joseph H. Wilson owned solvent credits to the amount of thirty-eight thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars, and bank stock to the amount of nine thousand dollars. That his net income for said fiscal year, was six hundred and fifteen dollars ($615).
IV. That the debt of the city of Charlotte is about forty-five thousand (45,000) dollars, twenty-five thousand of which is admitted to be legal, consisting of bonds issued by said city, in conformity to law. That in addition thereto, said city has contracted other debts, which have gradually increased from year to year, from the adoption of the present Constitution, to the year 1874, amounting to twenty-four thousand (24,000) dollars, consisting of three thousand nine hundred and thirty-two (3,932) dollars, due by notes to the different banks of the city of Charlotte, for money borrowed and expended in defraying the necessary expenses of the city government; also six thousand two hundred and eighty-eight (6,288) dollars, due to different persons, upon notes given to them, for damages to real estate, arising from widening the streets of the city, which last mentioned notes contain a stipulation, that they are to be paid by giving the holders credit on their respective notes for the amount of their taxes, year, by year, until said notes are paid. That by this means, a considerable portion of said notes has been paid. That the balance of said indebtedness consists of accounts for work done, or for materials furnished for improving the streets, and other expenses of the government deemed necessary. That this indebtedness was incurred without a popular vote of the citizens; and that after its contraction, to wit, in November, 1873, a proposition was submitted by the Board of Aldermen of said city, to the citizens thereof, to clothe said Board of Aldermen, by a popular vote, with authority to fund said debt, which was refused and the proposition voted down.
That the tax in question is levied to pay off the interest on the bank debt; to pay the current expenses of the city government, and to pay off the twenty-four thousand (24,000) dollar debt, contracted as aforesaid, as far as it will go.
V. That the said Joseph H. Wilson, and those interested with him, being of opinion that said solvent credits, bank stock and income were not subject to taxation by said Board of Aldermen of said city of Charlotte, refused to make return thereof; and after the time had elapsed, within which taxpayers were required to make return of their taxable property and other subjects of taxation, the said Board of Aldermen ordered the Clerk and Treasurer of the city to complete the tax list by reference to the returns for the State and county taxes. That this was accordingly done, and the said Joseph H. Wilson was assessed on the said solvent credits, bank stock and income, the sum of three hundred and sixty-five dollars and twenty-one cents, (365.21,) which sum was duly demanded of him, and payment thereof refused.
The charter of the city of Charlotte, with the amendments thereto, and the ordinances for raising revenue, as hereinbefore set out, is made a part of the case agreed, but which it is unnecessary farther to notice.
If the court should be of opinion, that the said solvent credits, bank stocks and incomes are subjects of taxation by the Board of Aldermen of the said city of Charlotte, and the tax thus levied by said Board of Aldermen is legal, then judgment is to be rendered for the said Board. If, on the other hand, the court should be of opinion, that said property is not the subject of taxation by said Board of Aldermen, and that the tax thus levied is illegal, the judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff.
His Honor, being of opinion with the defendant, rendered jndgment as tollows, to wit:
The facts of this case are agreed, and raise two questions:
First. Whether or not the city of Charlotte, under the charter as present amended, has power to levy a tax upon all the property mentioned in Art. V, sec. 3, of the Constitution, including solvent credits, bond, &c., &c. This depends upon the construction of sec. 2 of the amendment to the charter, dated 25th of January, 1872, which reads as follows:
“That said tax shall be levied on all real and personal property, trades, licences and other subjects of taxation, as provided in sec. 3 of Art. V of the State Constitution.” For the power of city authorities to tax debts and securities for money, depends upon the charter. Pullen v. Commissioners of Raleigh, 68 N. C. Rep., 451. On this point, the court is of opinion, that ““other subjects of taxation,” means all property subject to taxation, and that the word “provided” refers to the rules governing the taxation; that is, it must be “uniform” as to credits, &c., and according to its true value, as to real and personal property. That, therefore, the city of Charlotte has the power to tax solvent credits, debts, &c., and that the plaintiff's are liable to this tax.
Second. Whether the tax levied under sec. 8 of the city ordinance is constitutional. The section is as follows:
“In addition to taxes above levied, there shall be a specific tax of one quarter of one per cent. on all real and personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp.
...and definite meaning. Its meaning varies according to the subject treated ... and according to the context." Wilson v. Board of Aldermen of Charlotte, 74 N.C. 748, 755 (1876); see also 1 Valuation and Distribution of Marital Property § 18.02[1], at 18-11 (2003) (noting after review of diffe......
-
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 ... resulting injury to person or property. ' Millar v ... Town of Wilson, 222 N.C. 340, 23 S.E.2d 42, 43 ... This ... Court ... of the people. Sing v. City of Charlotte, 213 N.C ... 60, 195 S.E. 271; Palmer v. Haywood County, 212 N.C ... 233, 159 S.E. 439. Thus, ... in Wilson v. Board of Aldermen of City of Charlotte, 74 N.C ... 748, it was said: 'It was held in ... ...
-
Henderson v. City of Wilmington
...provision antagonistic to, or at variance with, the section under consideration. We must rely upon our own decisions. In Wilson v. Board of Aldermen, 74 N.C. 748, 759, Rodman, J., said that it would be difficult, if impossible, to draw a precise line between what are, and what are not, the ......
-
Mayo v. Town of Washington
...has inherent power, or by reasonable implication from its general power, to build a jail or guard house as a public necessity. In Wilson v. Charlotte, supra, Rodman, J., "It would be difficult or impossible to draw a precise line between what are and what are not the necessary expenses of a......