{
  "id": 11272072,
  "name": "W. H. PRITCHARD v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pritchard v. Board of Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "479",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "160 N.C. 476"
    }
  ],
  "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": "157 N. C., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658728
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272340
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N. C., 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652503
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0379-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N. C., 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269620
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/149/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N. C., 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659747
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269390
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N. C., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658728
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0514-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 5249,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0413978364065169e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5508591427531103
    },
    "sha256": "27c3df0f7c018632931d88ab1e9cf920a4df3db699af0131cf16bf06524a64ff",
    "simhash": "1:90a7c5d8bc7be496",
    "word_count": 884
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:58.976002+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. PRITCHARD v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clabk, C. J.\nTfiis is a motion to amend tfie opinion and judgment rendered in tfiis cause at tfiis term (159 N. 0., 636) so as to adjudge tfiat tfie defendant commissioners fiave authority to levy a special tax to pay interest and provide a sinking-fund to pay said bonds at tfieir maturity.\nTfie purchaser of tfie bonds has objected tfiat while chapter 600, Public-Local Laws 1911, authorized bonds which were a valid indebtedness of tfie county, tfie county commissioners were not authorized to levy special taxes in excess of tfie constitutional limitation, because said act was not passed in tfie manner prescribed by Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14. Commissioners v. McDonald, 148 N. C., 125.\nTfie requirements of tfie Constitution fiave often been summed up and are as follows:\n1. For necessary expenses, the county commissioners may levy up to the constitutional limitation without a vote of the people or legislative permission.\n2. For necessary expenses, the county commissioners may exceed the constitutional limitation by special legislative authority without a vote of the people. Constitution, Art. V, sec. 6.\n3. For other purposes than necessary expenses, a tax cannot be levied either within or in excess of the constitutional limitation, except by vote of the people under special legislative authority. Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 7.\nTbe above summary and analysis first laid down in Herring v. Dixon, 122 N. C., 420, has been quoted verbatim and incorporated in Tate v. Commissioners, ib., 815; Smathers v. Commissioners, 125 N. C., 488; Cotton Mills v. Waxhaw, 130 N. C., 298; R. R. v. Commissioners, 148 N. C., 251.\nAdmitting tbe objection to chapter 600, Public-Local Laws 1911, is valid, tbe defendants contend that tbe defect is cured by Laws 1903, cb. 486, sec. 9, which reads' as follows: \u201cTbe county commissioners of Orange County are hereby authorized and empowered to levy a special road tax for any township or road district in said county not exceeding one dollar on the hundred dollars of property and three dollars on the poll, always maintaining the constitutional equation between property and poll, and, may levy a different rate in each township.\u201d This last act was passed in entire conformity to the requirements of Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14.\nIt is true, also, that the Legislature can enlarge a town or county or road district without the act complying with Article II, sec. 14. Lutterloh v. Fayetteville, 149 N. C., 65; Trustees v. Webb, 155 N. C., 379; Commissioners v. Commissioners, 157 N. C., 514. But the act of 1903 was an act to work the roads by taxation, and did not contemplate issuing bonds. The \u201cspecial road tax\u201d therein authorized was for payment of that expense and not for payment of interest and bonds. The act of 1911, ch. 600, Public Laws, contemplated a \u201cchange from a township to a county system,\u201d but it also contemplated a bond issue of $250,000, which was not in the purview of the act of 1903.\nThe \u201cspecial road tax\u201d in the act of 1903 for working the roads cannot be held authority to exceed the constitutional limitation for payment of principal or interest of the $250,000 bonds authorized by the act of 1911. The special legislative authority required by Constitution, Art. Y, sec. 6 (see\u00bb paragraph 2 of analysis above), must be conferred in the manner required by Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14. As the General Assembly will be in session in a few days, this will not entail much delay. The bonds are nevertheless a valid tender. Hotel Co. v. Red Springs, 157 N. C., 140; Underwood v. Asheboro, 152 N. C., 641; Jones v. New Bern, ibid., 64; Commissioners v. McDonald, 148 N. C., 125.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clabk, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manning & Everett for plaintiff.",
      "Frank Nash for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. PRITCHARD v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY et al.\n(Filed 20 November, 1912.)\n1. Cities and Towns \u2014 Bond Issues \u2014 Statutes \u2014 \u201cAye\u201d and \u201cNo\u201d Vote \u2014 Separate Readings \u2014 Constitutional Law.\nWhile the bonds issued by Orange County for road purposes under chapter 600, Public-Local Laws of 1911, are for necessary expenses, yet if the act was not passed in conformity with' Const., Art. II, sec. 14, the county commissioners are not authorized to levy a tax in excess of the constitutional limitation with which to pay interest and provide for a sinking fund. Analysis of the constitutional requirements for the levying, of taxes by a county for necessary and other expenses by -Clark, C. X, under this article and under Article V, sec. 6, and Article VII, sec. 7.\n2. Same \u2014 Prior Statutes \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nAn act which has been regularly passed, upon separate days, with the \u201caye\u201d and \u201cno\u201d vote required by Article II, sec. 14, of the Constitution, authorizing the levying a tax for the purpose of working the public roads, cannot be construed in connection with an act passed for issuing bonds for road purposes, not passed as required by this section of the Constitution, so as to authorize a tax levy in excess of that limited by the Constitution. Commissioners v. Commissioners, 157 N. C., 514, cited and distinguished.\nAppeal by defendants from Whedibee, J., at August Term, 1912, of ObaNGe.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in tfie opinion of tfie Court by Mr. Clv\u00edef Justice Ciarle.\nManning & Everett for plaintiff.\nFrank Nash for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 516,
  "last_page_order": 519
}