{
  "id": 8658657,
  "name": "L. N. RUSSELL v. TOWN OF TROY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Town of Troy",
  "decision_date": "1912-05-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 N.C. 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "18 L. R. A., 557",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C., 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 7108,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2106883425650245e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5959067497757591
    },
    "sha256": "58b769bfb2c765acd847cda0a1cb339e79123b340e282f1976b5946fe74261d1",
    "simhash": "1:8a238eac91e11c78",
    "word_count": 1257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:45.962633+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. N. RUSSELL v. TOWN OF TROY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nChapter 441, Laws 1903, created a graded-scbool district including tbe town of Troy, and authorized a vote on tbe question of issuing $5,000 in bonds to establish tbe school and provided'machinery for bolding tbe election. Chapter 54, Private Laws 1909, amended the above act of 1903 by striking out $5,000 and inserting $15,000. Both tbe above acts were passed in tbe manner required by Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14.\nChapter 69, Private Laws 1911, sec. 1, amended tbe act of 1903 by \u201cstriking out tbe word Twenty\u2019 and inserting in lieu thereof the word Thirty.\u2019 \u201d Tbe effect of this was to repeal and strike out the authority'given by tbe act of 1903 to issue twenty-year bonds. Section 3 of tbe act of 1911 further amended tbe act of 1903 by \u201cstriking out tbe word Thirty,\u2019 in line eleven, and inserting tbe word \u2018sixty.\u2019 \u201d The effect of this was to strike out tbe authority conferred by tbe act of 1903 to issue bonds based upon a levy.of 30 cents on tbe $100 of property and requiring tbe bonds to be based upon a levy of 60 cents on tbe $100.\nTbe act of 1911 further amended tbe act of 1903 by striking out \u201c$5,000\u201d and inserting \u201c$20,000\u201d as tbe amount of bonds authorized! to be issued, and amended the machinery for bold-ing the election.\nAfter tbe act of 1911, and under the authority and machinery of said act, an election was held at which tbe school district voted to issue $20,000 of thirty-year bonds, and has contracted for tbe sale of $20,000 in thirty-year bonds. Tbe said act of 1911 is invalid as an authority to issue tbe bonds, because it was not passed in tbe mode required by tbe Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14. Tbe defendants contend, however, that $15,00Q of tbe bonds are valid under tbe acts of 1903 and 1909. But it will be seen at once that an authority given at tbe ballot box to issue $20,000 in thirty-year bonds, based upon a tax rate of 60 cents per $100, will not authorize the issuance of $15,000 in twenty-year bonds based upon a 30-cent tax rate. The people have not voted their assent to the latter proposition.\nBesides, the authority to issue \u201ctwenty-year\u201d bonds is not in existence. It was repealed by the act of 1911. The legislative act to that effect was valid, though the attempt to substitute $20,f)00 in thirty-year bonds was invalid for failure to comply with the. Constitution.\nIn Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C., 733, this Court held that though an act had passed in the constitutional mode under Article II, sec. 14, the three readings in both houses and with the yea and nay vote on second and third readings, in each house, duly recorded, 'yet if there was a material amendment upon the last reading in the second house, the act was invalid. The Court said that when such amendment is in a material matter, \u201cit would be necessary that the amended bill should be read over again three times in each house, with yea and nay vote on the second and third readings, entered on the journals. It is the bill, in its final shape, not in another and different form, which requires these preliminaries to its validity. It would be a clear evasion of the constitutional guarantees and of the restrictions upon legislatve power, if after a bill had passed one house and two readings in the other in the required manner, it could then be amended into something else. ... In ordinary legislation, material amendments may be made even on the last reading in the second house, and when concurred in by the other house the bill is law. In such cases the ratification is conclusive of the passage of the act. But it is otherwise as to legislation which the Legislature is restricted from passing except in a manner specifically pointed out and prescribed. In the latter case any substantial amendment requires the passage of the amended bill in the prescribed manner de novo. Norman v. Kentucky, 18 L. R. A., 557.\u201d\nThis being so,' even where the amendment is made in the passage of the bill itself, and when the bill has passed three readings in each house with the aye and no vote recorded on the journals on the second and third readings in each house, for a stronger reason the bonds are invalid when the material amendment is made in a subsequent act.\nThe act of 1911 striking out \u201ctwenty years\u201d was one which the Legislature in 1911 could enact without recording the ayes and noes, as was also the provision striking out $5,000 and inserting $20,000, and was valid as ordinary legislation.\nThere is no authority to issue $15,000 in \u201ctwenty-year bonds,\u201d both because the people have not voted for such bonds and because the provision authorizing such bonds has been stricken out by the Legislature of 1911. It is 'true, the school district has voted to issue $20,000 in \u201cthirty-year bonds,\u201d but this was not authorized, because the act of 1911 was not passed in the constitutional mode. Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1, does not apply to school districts.\nThe bonds are therefore invalid and the injunction should have issued as prayed for.\nReversed. .",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. A. Spence and J er\u00f3me & Price (by brief ) for plaintiffs.",
      "W. A. Cochran and B. T. Poole (by brief) ,for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. N. RUSSELL v. TOWN OF TROY.\n(Filed 28 May, 1912.)\n1. Cities and Towns \u2014 Bond issues \u2014 Legislative Amendments \u2014 Constitutional Law \u2014 Vote of the People.\nWlien an act lias been passed by the Legislature authorizing a graded school district to vote on the question of issuing bonds for a graded school in a certain amount, and amended at a subsequent session so as to authorize bonds to a larger amount and \u2022 to run a longer time, both acts having been passed upon their several reading's, with aye 'and no vote according to Article II, sec. 14, of the Cohstitution, an issue of bonds under a still later and similar act for a larger amount and upon a greater rate of taxation is invalid in tot\u00f3 when the later act is not likewise passed in accordance with the constitutional requirements. Const., Art. VII, sec. 7, does not apply to such districts.\n2. Same \u2014 Distinct Propositions \u2014 Assent of Voters.\nBonds issued under an act which has not been passed by the Legislature according to the Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14, amending a valid act authorizing a town to submit an issue of bonds for school purposes to its voters, which increases' the amount, term, and rate of taxation of the bonds specified in the former act. are invalid even as to the amount authorized to be issued under the valid act, for that amount was only authorized at a less rate of taxation, etc., as to which the voters upon the proposition under the invalid act have not assented.\n3. Same \u2014 Repealing Acts.\nA constitutional act of the Legislature authorizing a town to vote on \u201ctwenty-year\u201d school bonds is repealed by a later act, though not passed in accordance with Article II, sec. 14, of the Constitution, which only authorizes the issuance of the bonds for a greater amount and rate of taxation and for a longer term.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from order of Allen, J., from MONTGOMERY, rendered at chambers, 10 May, 1912.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.\nJ. A. Spence and J er\u00f3me & Price (by brief ) for plaintiffs.\nW. A. Cochran and B. T. Poole (by brief) ,for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 417
}