{
  "id": 8626037,
  "name": "GOODMAN v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PERSON COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodman v. Board of Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1928-11-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 257"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 S. E., 707",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269277
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E., 739",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619170
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. E., 698",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608157
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0358-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 2091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.207257257083328
    },
    "sha256": "c2f45737b826bd5a463e019f5871d751c062baa05838bd6b24a4b63e404927f3",
    "simhash": "1:25e40932fd7d3e5b",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GOODMAN v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PERSON COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe bonds in question are issued in accordance with the provisions of the County Finance Act and in conformity with the provisions thereof. The findings of fact made by the trial judge and supported by evidence fully support and justify the judgment approving both bond issues. No practical purpose would be served by citation and discussion of authorities. The law is clear and well settled. Hartsfield v. Craven County, 194 N. C., 358, 139 S. E., 698; Hall v. Commissioners, 194 N. C., 768, 140 S. E., 739; Mayo v. Commissioners, ante, 15; Commissioners v. Spitzer, 173 N. C., 147, 91 S. E., 707.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Luther M. Carlton for plaintiff.",
      "Nathan Lunsford for\u25a0 defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GOODMAN v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PERSON COUNTY.\n(Filed 14 November, 1928.)\nTaxation \u2014 Constitutional Requirements and Restrictions \u2014 Right of Counties to Issue Bonds Without Approval of Voters \u2014 County Finance Act.\nUnder the facts of this case, the validity of bonds issued for funding a valid indebtedness created prior to 7 March, 1927, for the operation of the constitutional six-months term of school, and bonds issued for funding a valid indebtedness created prior to 7 March, 1927, for erecting and equipping the county home for the indigent and infirm is upheld under the provisions of the County Finance Act.\nCivil actioN, heard by Devin, J., a.t Chambers, 22 September, 1928. From Pebson.\nThe purpose of the action, was to determine the validity of a bond issue for $65,000 for the purpose of funding valid indebtedness created before 7 March, 1927, in the necessary operation of the six months school term required by the Constitution. The action also involved the validity of a bond issue for $13,000 for the purpose of funding a valid and necessary indebtedness of the county created prior to 7 March, 1927, for the purpose of erecting and equipping the county home for the indigent and infirm of said county.\nThe trial judge, from the evidence offered, found the necessary and essential facts and ruled that both bond issues were valid.\nFrom the judgment rendered the plaintiff appealed.\nLuther M. Carlton for plaintiff.\nNathan Lunsford for\u25a0 defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 338
}