{
  "id": 8657185,
  "name": "BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PLYMOUTH GRADED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PRUDEN AND COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Trustees of Plymouth Graded School District v. Pruden & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1920-06-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 617"
    }
  ],
  "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": "148 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269390
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269390
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0125-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 5076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.311415067056033
    },
    "sha256": "c920b0188644d8241c577c7247bfe40d102be7a5fafbde4377e1633a7c27d109",
    "simhash": "1:3f83f889e84fbeea",
    "word_count": 868
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PLYMOUTH GRADED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PRUDEN AND COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.,\nafter stating the facts: The power to erect a school building or buildings for the accommodation of the public schools of a given district in our opinion includes the power to provide the ordinary equipment. As indicated in a recent decision of this Court, this equipment consists in great part o\u00a3 seats and desks for tbe pupils, fastened to tbe building after tbe manner of fixtures, and comes clearly witbin tbe terms and purport of sucb a law as ordinarily expressed, and tbe first objection of tbe defendant bas been properly disallowed. Comrs. v. Malone, ante, 10.\nIn reference to tbe second objection raised by tbe defendant, we are inclined to tbe opinion tbat tbe proceedings having been instituted, and tbe bond issue approved under tbe provisions of tbe statute specially applicable, tbat tbe provisions of tbe statute would be controlling, and tbe commissioners at all times empowered to levy a tax sufficient to pay tbe interest annually and retain tbe bonds at maturity \u2014 assuredly so if tbe bonds are beld by an innocent purchaser for value. Comrs. v. Malone, supra.\nTbe question, however, is not presented in tbe record, for even if tbe limitation in tbe amount of taxation contained in tbe resolution of tbe commissioners should be beld effective, it would in no wise affect tbe validity of tbe bonds, under tbe principle applied by tbe Court in Comrs. v. McDonald, 148 N. C., 125.\nWe therefore concur in tbe ruling of bis Honor tbat tbe proposed bond issue will constitute a binding obligation on tbe school district, and tbat tbe defendants must comply with the contract concerning them.\nThere is no error, and tbe judgment of tbe lower court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb Vance Norman for plaintiff.",
      "Van B. Martin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PLYMOUTH GRADED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PRUDEN AND COMPANY.\n(Filed 2 June, 1920.)\n1. School Districts\u2014 Schools \u2014 Buildings\u2014Equipment\u2014Statutes\u2014Bonds.\nLegislative authority to a school district to issue bonds to erect a school building or buildings for the accommodation of the public schools therein, includes the power to provide the ordinary equipment. Commissioners v. Malone, 179, N. C., 110.\n2. Same \u2014 Taxation\u2014Interest\u2014Sinking Fund.\nWhere a statute authorizes a school district to issue bonds to erect a school building or buildings, with provision for a special tax to pay the interest thereon \u201cand to create a sinking fund sufficient to retire said bonds at their maturity,\u201d the provisions of the statute would control those of an ordinance limiting the amount, assuredly if the bonds were in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value; and were it otherwise, the validity of the bonds would not be affected under the principle applied in Commissioners v. McDonald,, 148 N. C., 125.\nCivil acjtion, beard on case agreed before Lyon, J., at Spring Term, 1920, of WASHINGTON.\nIt appears from tbe facts properly presented, tbat pursuant to an act passed for the purpose in reference to Plymouth Graded School District, cb- 128, Laws 1919, an election was held on 8 July, 1919, and the votes of .said district by a large majority approved the proposition to issue coupon bonds to the amount of $60,000, to provide a fund for the erection of a school building for the accommodation of the public schools of said district, the said majority.vote having been expressed on a ballot \u201cfor school bonds and taxes,\u201d as the statute directs.\nIn reference to the taxes to be levied to carry out this measure, the act provides in sec. 1, \u201cthat the proposition to be submitted shall be for the issue of $60,000 of bonds for the purpose designated, and for the levying of a tax sufficient- to retire said bonds.\u201d And again, in sec. 8, \u201cThat if in the election provided for in the act the majority of the qualified voters of the district shall have voted for school bonds and taxes, and said bonds shall have been issued and sold, the board of commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to levy annually upon the property and polls of the district a special tax sufficient to provide for the payment of the interest on said bonds, and to er,eate a sinking fund sufficient to retire said bonds at their maturity.\u201d The bonds having been prepared, the defendants agreed to purchase the same at a stipulated price, and now resist payment on the grounds:\n1. That in the resolution of the county commissioners ordering the election it is provided that the proceeds of the bonds are to be used for the equipment as well as the erection of the buildings.\n2. That in said resolution it is provided that the maximum annual tax for the payment of the interest and final retirement of said bonds shall be 75 cents on property, and $2.25 on the poll.\nIt further appears in the case agreed that according to the valuation of property in Plymouth Graded School District now prevailing the maximum tax is more than sufficient to meet the annual interest and retire the bonds at maturity as the statute contemplates and provides.\nOn these the facts chiefly relevant, there was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nZeb Vance Norman for plaintiff.\nVan B. Martin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-01",
  "first_page_order": 673,
  "last_page_order": 675
}