{
  "id": 11272422,
  "name": "DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS v. C. A. WEBB & CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Drainage Commissioners v. Webb",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "594",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "160 N.C. 594"
    }
  ],
  "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": "152 N. C., 548",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0548-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N. C., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272875
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N. C., 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274776
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/86/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 743",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 5346,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.380700519347367e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8763632551550302
    },
    "sha256": "a3cb297757f82f1118d1ef2036d4c968222a3553b8f4991e57aabc2932a75c0c",
    "simhash": "1:882a6a22684e8812",
    "word_count": 881
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:58.976002+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "\"Walker and BrowN, JJ., concur in this opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS v. C. A. WEBB & CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OlaRK, O. J.\nThe only question presented is whether the Legislature had the power by chapter 177, Public Laws 1911, to exempt from taxation bonds issued by the commissioners of the Muddy Creek Drainage District in Duplin County.\nConstitution, Art. Y, sec. 3, declares: \u201cLaws shall be passed, taxing by a uniform rule all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock companies, or otherwise; and also all real and personal property.\u201d And Article VII, sec. 9, provides: \u201cAll taxes levied by any county, city, or town or township shall 'be uniform and ad valorem, upon all property in the same, except property exempted by this Constitution.\u201d\nThe language of the Constitution is explicit, and the court below properly held' that the bonds of this drainage district could not be exempted from taxation. The plaintiffs contend that the Legislature has such power to exempt bonds from taxation under Article Y, see. 5, which provides that \u201cProperty belonging to the State or to municipal corporations shall be exempt from taxation.\u201d But its own bonds are not the property of the drainage district. Nor is such district a municipal corporation; certainly not within the meaning of that paragraph of the Constitution, which merely contemplates exempting property belonging to the State and to counties, cities, and towns. The reason for this is that as the State has the taxing power, if its bonds are not exempted the amount of the taxes will merely be added to the rate of interest, and it would be useless to collect additional taxes to pay the interest when it will save commissions thereon to deduct the taxes in advance, thus reducing the rate of interest. We do not know of any county or municipal bonds being exempted, but if it can be done, the exemption would only extend to taxes of the county or municipality issuing such bonds; else, to the extent of the exemption, such county or municipality would be taxing the people of the rest of the State.\nAs stated by Hoke, J., in Sanderlin v. Luken, 152 N. C., 743, these drainage districts are regarded as,\u201cpublic quasi-corporations, but partaking to some extent of the character of a governmental agency.\u201d Their assessments upon the land, it is said, quoting Shuford v. Commissioners, 86 N. C., 552, are \u201cregarded as a local assessment and made with reference to special benefits derived from the property assessed- from the expenditure, while taxes are public burdens imposed as burdens for the purpose of general revenue.\u201d\nIt is clear that tbe drainage commissioners bave no power to levy taxes for tbe purposes of general revenue. They can only levy local assessments for tbe purposes of tbe public quasi-corporation. Hence, sucb drainage districts are not municipal corporations whose property or whose bonds can be exempted from taxation. To exempt either is equivalent to taxing all other property for their benefit. In Loan Association v. Commissioners, 115 N. C., 413, Burwell), J., says: \u201cTbe General Assembly may exempt cemeteries and property held for educational, scientific, literary, charitable, or religious purposes, and also tbe personal property of tbe taxpayer to a value not exceeding $300. Constitution, Art. Y, sec. 5. It has no power to make any other exemptions. It is impliedly forbidden to do so.\u201d To same effect, R. R. v. Allsbrook, 110 N. C., 137; Pullen v. Corporation Commission, 152 N. C., 548.\nIn view of tbe plain provisions of our Constitution restricting exemptions to tbe above recited purposes and requiring taxation to be uniform and ad valorem upon all other property, it will be useless to discuss decisions in other States with constitutions more or less variant from our own.\nTbe drainage districts bave conferred upon them tbe right of eminent domain, just as a railroad company or an electric power plant has, and for tbe same reason, that they are pwasi-public corporations. But they do not come within tbe definition of \u201cmunicipal corporations\u201d in Constitution, Art. Y, sec. 5. They bave no governmental taxing power for general purposes. It is true, tbe formation of these districts is encouraged by our statutes, because they are expected to aid largely in tbe development of tbe State. But so do railroads, electric power plants, and other quasi-pAblio, corporations. No one can contend that property or bonds of those companies can be exempted from taxation, nor can those of a drainage district.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OlaRK, O. J."
      },
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.,\nconcurring: I concur in tbe result upon the ground that tbe drainage district is not a municipal corporation within tbe meaning of Article Y, see. 5, of tbe Constitution.\n\"Walker and BrowN, JJ., concur in this opinion.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "AlleN, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kerr & Gmin for plamtijfs.",
      "C. A. Webb and\u00a1 T. II. Calvert for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS v. C. A. WEBB & CO.\n(Filed 4 December, 1912.)\nDrainage Districts \u2014 Bond Issues \u2014 Taxation\u2014Exemptions\u2014Constitutional Law. -\nDrainage districts are not regarded as municipal corporations in purview of tbe Constitution, Article V, sec. 5, and a legislative act exempting tbeir bonds from taxation, violates tbe uniform rule as to taxation required by Article V, sec. 3, and by Article V, sec. 9, and bence such an act is unconstitutional.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Ferguson, J., at May Term, 1912, of JDupliN.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.\nKerr & Gmin for plamtijfs.\nC. A. Webb and\u00a1 T. II. Calvert for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0594-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 636
}