{
  "id": 8660188,
  "name": "J. W. HALFORD v. D. H. SENTER et als., Constituting the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HARNETT COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Halford v. Senter",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "546",
  "last_page": "548",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 N.C. 546"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 N. C., 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 249,
    "char_count": 3798,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1187930326997241e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5728984585587809
    },
    "sha256": "3a5879a116613db287e23788d16092f33293a5d4e74096c01ca6b9cee924eddf",
    "simhash": "1:8489b5a114c3eed3",
    "word_count": 626
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:09.233721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. HALFORD v. D. H. SENTER et als., Constituting the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HARNETT COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeowN, J.\nTbe agreed facts are tbat plaintiff was duly elected superintendent of bealtb for Harnett County by tbe board of bealtb of said county and his compensation fixed by said board at tbe rate of $600 per annum. Upon tbe presentation of plaintiff\u2019s claim, tbe matter being properly brought before tbe defendants, tbe board of commissioners of said county, they declined to audit and allow such expenditure, upon tbe ground tbat it was exorbitant and unreasonable.\nTbe defendants then authorized an expenditure of $300 per annum for tbe services of plaintiff as superintendent of bealtb.\nSection 9 of chapter 62 of tbe Public Laws of 1911 provides tbat tbe board of bealtb shall make such rules and regulations, pay such fees and salaries and impose such penalties as in their judgment may b\u00e9 necessary to protect and advance tbe public bealtb: Provided, tbat all expenditures shall be approved by tbe board of county commissioners before being paid.\nTbe very question presented here was decided by this Court adversely to plaintiff\u2019s contention in McCullers v. Commissioners, 158 N. C., 84, where it is said: \u201cIt thus becomes tbe duty of tbe board of commissioners to pass on and audit tbe plaintiff\u2019s account for services and determine whether they are reasonable and within tbe bounds fixed by tbe statute. . . . Tbe approval of tbe defendant\u2019s board is necessary to tbe payment of plaintiff\u2019s account, and while tbe courts will not undertake to compel tbe county commissioners to approve them, they will require them to consider tbe account and to pass on it in good faith in tbe exercise of a sound judgment as to whether or not tbe services as charged are warranted by tbe statute.\u201d\nTbe Constitution of this State prescribes tbat a board of commissioners shall be biennially elected in each county. Such board is given \u201ca general supervision and control of tbe penal and charitable institutions, schools, roads, bridges, levying of taxes and of the finances of the county as may be prescribed by law.\u201d\nThe commissioners constitute the local governing body of the county and are directly responsible to the people who elected them. It is not only reasonable but due to the people of the county that these men elected by them should have supervision and control over the expenditures of a subordinate and nonelective board.\nIt is not to be supposed that the General Assembly intended to deprive the taxpayers of a county of such necessary and proper protection and safeguards which are thus thrown around the county treasury.\nThe proceeding is dismissed at cost of plaintiff.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Baggett & Baggett for the plaintiff.",
      "E. F. Young for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. HALFORD v. D. H. SENTER et als., Constituting the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HARNETT COUNTY.\n(Filed 6 October, 1915.)\nHealth \u2014 County Commissioners \u2014 County Superintendent \u2014 Fixing Salary \u2014 Mandamus \u2014 Constitutional law \u2014 Statutes.\nSection 9, chapter 62, Public Laws of 1911, providing for a county board of health, by express provision requires the approval of expenditures made by them by the county commissioners, the latter, by constitutional provision, being given, among other things, general supervision of the levying of taxes and the finances of the county; and where the county commissioners have disapproved of the amount of salary the county hoard of health has agreed to pay the county superintendent of health and fixed a less sum therefor, a mandamus will not lie to compel the payment of a greater sum than that so determined upon.\nAppeal by defendants from Bond,, J., at tbe May Term, 1915, of HAENETT.\nMandamus to compel defendants to audit and pay tbe plaintiff $600, salary as superintendent of bealtb for Harnett County for one year. Upon tbe return of tbe writ it was made absolute, and defendants appealed.\nBaggett & Baggett for the plaintiff.\nE. F. Young for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0546-01",
  "first_page_order": 600,
  "last_page_order": 602
}