{
  "id": 8631725,
  "name": "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF McDOWELL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. ASSELL, GOETZ & MOERLIN, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Commissioners v. Assell, Goetz & Moerlin, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1928-06-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "719",
  "last_page": "720",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 719"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2119,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.257242710097802e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5113504686952791
    },
    "sha256": "44778b4444126af99f09a7059d3989b2eb89938f55616e73d25beaf3f0342922",
    "simhash": "1:436c343001d3cfce",
    "word_count": 363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF McDOWELL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. ASSELL, GOETZ & MOERLIN, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClaeKSON, J.\nThis is a petition by appellee to rehear the above action. The Court\u2019s decision is set forth in Comrs. v. Assell, 194 N. C., p. 412.\nThe Court said, in that opinion, at p. 418: \u201cThe record does show that the proposed bond issue was for .necessary expenses of the county and a valid and legal obligation of the county. The subject or subjects of the necessary expense or expenses for special county purposes are not set forth, and nothing else appearing, it is taken for granted that they were for one or more special necessary purposes and funding permissible under Constitution, Art. V, sec. 6, and the County Finance Act. The special approval has been given by the general act.\u201d This was the sole question before the Court presented by the appeal.\nAppellees on their petition to rehear seek to present the following question: \u201cIs the county tax to be deemed levied for a special purpose and with the approval of the General Assembly, which may be done by special or general act,\u2019 within the meaning of Const. of N. C., Art. V, sec. 6, and therefore exempt from the 15-cents tax limit prescribed by that section, where the tax is levied pursuant to express authority conferred by the county finance act for the purpose of paying certain funding bonds authorized by the act, and where the debt to be funded by the bond issue may have been incurred for ordinary current expenses, the debt being one which was outstanding at the time of ratification of the County Finance Act and validated by the act?\u201d This question was not and is not presented by the record.\nPetition dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClaeKSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winbourne & Proctor, Pless & Pless, Wm. Henry Hoyt and Chester B. Masslich for petitioner, appellee.",
      "Morgan & Ragland for appellants.",
      "Bruce Craven amicus curice."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF McDOWELL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. ASSELL, GOETZ & MOERLIN, Inc.\n(Filed 6 June, 1928.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Record\u2014Questions Not Presented on Record \u2014 Review \u2014 Rehearing.\nA question not presented on record of a former decision will not be considered in the Supreme Court on a motion to rehear the case.\nPetition to rehear.\nWinbourne & Proctor, Pless & Pless, Wm. Henry Hoyt and Chester B. Masslich for petitioner, appellee.\nMorgan & Ragland for appellants.\nBruce Craven amicus curice."
  },
  "file_name": "0719-01",
  "first_page_order": 791,
  "last_page_order": 792
}