{ "id": 8630304, "name": "NANTAHALA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. THE COUNTY OF CLAY, and W. M. ANDERSON, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and J. P. COLEMAN and J. W. MILLER, Members of the Board of Commissioners of CLAY COUNTY, and R. E. CRAWFORD, Auditor of CLAY COUNTY, and J. M. TIGER, Sheriff, Tax Collector, and Treasurer of CLAY COUNTY", "name_abbreviation": "Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. County of Clay", "decision_date": "1938-06-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "698", "last_page": "709", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "213 N.C. 698" } ], "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": "170 S. E., 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627545 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S. E., 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621157 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631126 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271205 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S. E., 1077", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 N. C., 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270824 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/160/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S. E., 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S. E., 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656082 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 S. E., 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N. C., 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659233 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/135/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 S. E., 865", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650853 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E., 627", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614465 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 S. E., 138", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N. C., 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660754 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/124/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S. E., 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N. C., 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628819 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S. E., 610", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623654 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 467", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 756", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631924 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S. E., 748", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 781", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619417 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0781-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S. E., 132", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N. C., 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653415 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S. E., 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271418 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S. E., 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S. E., 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653714 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S. E., 91", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 N. C., 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272869 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/178/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. E., 534", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653672 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S. E., 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 S. E., 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.. C., 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607570 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N. C., 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N. C., 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S. E., 439", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624060 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0233-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1022, "char_count": 33249, "ocr_confidence": 0.488, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.251508501488848e-07, "percentile": 0.9414043058108793 }, "sha256": "f7c1f7863be9271f42f6a964e0357698d2ce751a722da5e86bf921c84436a0ef", "simhash": "1:ad034ce02ce95b4f", "word_count": 5644 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease." ], "parties": [ "NANTAHALA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. THE COUNTY OF CLAY, and W. M. ANDERSON, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and J. P. COLEMAN and J. W. MILLER, Members of the Board of Commissioners of CLAY COUNTY, and R. E. CRAWFORD, Auditor of CLAY COUNTY, and J. M. TIGER, Sheriff, Tax Collector, and Treasurer of CLAY COUNTY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PlaiNtief\u2019s Appeal.\nWinborne, J.\nThe State Constitution provides the fundamental\nauthority for, and prescribes the limitation upon, the levying of county taxes.\nArticle VII, section 7, reads in part: \u201c. . . No county, city or other municipal corporation shall contract any debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officers of the same except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein. ...\u201d\nArticle V, section 6, provides in part: \u201cThe total of the State and county tax on property shall not exceed fifteen cents on the one hundred dollars value of property, except when the county property tax is levied for a special purpose and with the special approval of the General Assembly, which may be done by special or general act. . . .\u201d\nThe subject of the authority to levy taxes has been discussed in numerous decisions of this Court. The law is well settled. In the case of Glenn v. Comrs., 201 N. C., 233, 159 S. E., 439, speaking with reference to authoritative decisions interpreting Article V, section 6, and Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution of North Carolina, Stacy, G. J., summarized the law as follows: \u201c1. That within the limitations fixed by Article V, section 6, the county commissioners of the several counties may levy taxes for the necessary expenses of the county without a vote of the people or special legislative approval. (Citing cases.) 'Taxation for State and county purposes combined cannot exceed the constitutional limitation for their necessary expenses and new debts. ... If what are often miscalled the \u201cnecessary expenses\u201d of a county exceed the limitation prescribed by law, the necessity cannot justify the violation of the Constitution.\u2019 French v. Comrs., 74 N. C., 692.\n\u201c2. That for special purposes and with the special approval of the General Assembly, the county commissioners of the several counties may exceed the limitations of Article Y, section 6, without a vote of the people; provided, the special purposes so approved by the General Assembly are for the necessary expenses of the county. (Citing cases.) . . . 'Such \u201cspecial purposes\u201d must be of the ordinary purposes of the county, such as that to build a courthouse, a public jail, or an important bridge, as to which it may be deemed necessary to create a special fund.\u2019 Merrimon, J., in Jones v. Comrs., 107 N. C., 264.\n\u201c3. That for purposes other than necessary expenses, whether special or other, taxes may not be levied by the county commissioners of any county either within or in excess of the limitations fixed by Article Y, section 6, except by a vote of the people under special legislative authority. (Citing case.) (See, also, Palmer v. Haywood County, 212 N.. C., 284, 193 S. E., 668; Sing v. Charlotte, ante, 60, 195 S. E., 271.)\n\u201c4. That a tax \u2018to supplement the general county fund\u2019 (R. R. v. Reid, 187 N. C., 320, 121 S. E., 534), or \u2018to provide for any deficiency in the necessary expenses and revenue of said respective counties\u2019 (R. R. v. Comrs., 178 N. C., 449, 101 S. E., 91), or \u2018for the purpose of taking up a note in bank by the predecessor board and other current expenses\u2019 (R. R. v. Cherokee County, 177 N. C., 86, 97 S. E., 758), or to meet \u2018the current expenses of said county in said years\u2019 (Williams v. Comrs., 119 N. C., 520, 26 S. E., 150), or \u2018to borrow money for the necessary expenses of the county and provide for its payment\u2019 (Bennett v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 625, 92 S. E., 603), is not for a special purpose within the meaning of the Constitution. . . .\u201d\nWhat are necessary expenses is a question for judicial determination. The decisions in this State uniformly so hold. The courts determine what class of expenditures made or to be made by a county come within the definition of a necessary expense. The governing authorities of the county are vested with the power to determine when they are needed. Sing v. Charlotte, supra, and cases cited.\nLikewise, what is a \u201cspecial purpose\u201d within the meaning of Article Y, section 6, of the Constitution is a matter for judicial, rather than legislative, determination. In Glenn v. Comrs., supra, it is said: \u201cAs a \u2018special purpose\u2019 for which an unlimited tax may be levied with the special approval of the General Assembly and without a vote of the people must also be a \u2018necessary expense\u2019 of the county, which latter includes both law and fact, and, as used in the Constitution and municipal resolutions is a matter for judicial, rather than legislative, determination \u2014 it follows that what constitutes a special purpose within the meaning of the Constitution must ultimately be decided by the courts.\u201d\nIn the case in hand it is pertinent to note there is no levy for general county purposes, and that the court below treated items 4, 5, 6 and 11 as for general purposes and limited the levy to the fifteen cents constitutional limitation, and declared the excess invalid and unconstitutional. Hence, each, of tbe items now challenged is levied as for a special purpose.\nPlaintiff challenges on this appeal the constitutionality and validity of the tax levy of Clay County for the year 1936 only as to these items for these purposes (for convenience numbered as they appear in tax levy) : (1) Commissioners\u2019 pay, expense and board, courthouse and grounds, and county attorney\u2019s fees; (2) tax listing expense; (3) expense of holding elections; (7) county accountant\u2019s salary; (8) county farm agent\u2019s salary; (9) upkeep county buildings, courthouse, county home, poor and paupers, and incidental purposes; (10) holding courts, expense of jail and jail prisoners.\nApplying the principles hereinbefore stated to the controverted items of the tax levy these questions arise: (1) 'Which, if any, are for purposes, constitutional and unconstitutional, valid and invalid, inseparably combined? (2) Which, if any, lack special approval of the General Assembly? (3) Which, if any, are not for necessary expenses within the meaning of Article YII, section 7, of the Constitution? (4) Which, if any, are for special purposes within the meaning of Article Y, section 6, of the Constitution?\nQuestions 1 and 2. Items 1 and 9: A statute may be constitutional in part, and in part unconstitutional. The general rule is that if a statute contains invalid or unconstitutional provisions, the part which is unaffected by those provisions, or which can stand without them, must remain. If the valid and invalid are separable, only the latter may be disregarded. R. R. v. Reid, supra. But in the levy of taxes if the board of commissioners combines in a particular item both general and special expenses beyond the constitutional limitation, that item must fall to the extent it exceeds that limitation. Or, if the board combines in a particular item the expenses of both a special and an unnecessary expense, that item must fall in its entirety. This subject has been before the court several times. Boards of commissioners have been permitted to amend their records to speak the truth in cases where levies have been made for general and special purposes separately but recorded as a unit in an amount exceeding the constitutional limitation. However, if the record correctly records the levy as actually made, the board has no power to amend. R. R. v. Reid, supra; R. R. v. Forbes, 188 N. C., 151, 124 S. E., 132; R. R. v. Cherokee, 194 N. C., 781, 140 S. E., 748; R. R. v. Cherokee, 195 N. C., 756, 143 S. E., 467; R. R. v. Lenoir County, 200 N. C., 494, 157 S. E., 610.\nThe board of commissioners of Clay County is a party to the present action. In answer filed it is not contended that an error has been committed in designating the purposes covered by the several items, or in combining the purposes in the separate items: As to Item 1: No special legislative approval is shown for attorney\u2019s fees. What part of this item is to cover that expense tbe record does not disclose. This brings tbe entire item into confusion as a special purpose, and renders it void. However, all tbe expenses set forth therein are general. Tbe board of county commissioners is tbe governing and tax levying authority. Its functions are general in every aspect, and tbe expenses of tbe board are constantly recurring. While tbe expense of building of courthouse may be special, tbe expense of running it after it is built is general. While tbe .purchase of tbe courthouse grounds may be special, tbe care of tbe grounds is a general expense. Therefore, each of tbe purposes included in this item is a general expense and comes within tbe limitation of Article Y, section 6, of tbe Constitution.\nIt will be noted in Item 9 that \u201cincidental\u201d purposes are commingled with other purposes therein included. It does not appear what tbe incidental purposes are, whether necessary or unnecessary expenses, or whether expenses for general or special purposes. Nor does it appear what part of tbe levy is for \u201cincidental purposes.\u201d It may be all or any part. Manifestly, it cannot be recognized as a \u201cspecial purpose.\u201d Thus tbe inclusion of it condemns tbe entire item. Tbe levy is indivisible and void. R. R. v. Reid, supra.\nQuestion 3. Item 8: Of tbe questions raised on this appeal plaintiff contends that tbe county farm agent\u2019s salary, Item 8, is not only not a necessary expense, but is not a special purpose. As a necessary expense this is tbe only item questioned.\nIn defining \u201cnecessary expense,\u201d it is said in Henderson v. Wilmington, 191 N. C., 269, 132 S. E., 25, \u201cWe derive practically no aid from tbe cases decided in other states. ... We must rely upon our own decisions.\u201d Then, after reviewing numerous cases dealing with tbe subject of \u201cnecessary expense,\u201d p. 278, Adams, J., said: \u201cTbe cases declaring certain expenses to be \u2018necessary\u2019 refer to some phase of municipal government. This Court, so far as we are advised, has given no decision to tbe contrary.\u201d Then, on p. 279, continues: \u201cTbe decisions heretofore rendered by tbe Court make tbe test of a \u2018necessary expense\u2019 tbe purpose for which tbe expense is to be incurred. If tbe purpose is tbe maintenance of tbe public peace or tbe administration of justice; if it partakes of a governmental nature or purports to be an exercise by tbe city of a portion of tbe State\u2019s delegated sovereignty; if, in brief, it involves a necessary governmental expense. . . .\u201d Sing v. Charlotte, supra.\nWe have only to refer to tbe Constitution to find that agriculture has a place in tbe fundamental plan and organization of tbe State government. Article III, section 17, provides: \u201cTbe General Assembly shall establish a Department of Agriculture, Immigration and Statistics under such regulations as may best promote tbe agricultural interests of tbe State. . . .\u201d C. S., 4666. \u201cThis simply directs tbe Legislature to do so, leaving to it the largest latitude of regulation.\u201d Cunningham v. Sprinkle, 124 N. C., 638, 33 S. E., 138. Then, under \u201cEducation,\u201d Article IX, section 14, provides: \u201cAs soon as practicable after tbe adoption of this Constitution the General Assembly shall establish and maintain, in connection with the University, a department of agriculture. . . .\u201d\nIn keeping with the constitutional mandate, the General Assembly has created and established a Department of Agriculture and prescribed for it duties and regulations. And among other things, it is provided that: \u201cThe boards of commissioners of the several counties have power . . . to cooperate with the State and national departments of agriculture to promote the farmers cooperative demonstration work, and to appropriate such sums as they may agree upon for the purpose.\u201d O. S., 1297 (40). \u201cThe Commissioner of Agriculture is authorized to conduct cooperative work with the United States Department of Agriculture and the county commissioners in gathering and disseminating information concerning agriculture. . . .\u201d O. S., 4689 (a).\nThis cooperative work is carried on through the county farm agent, and at the joint expense of national, State and county governments. (Agricultural Extension Work Act. U. S. C. A Title 7, sections 341-348, and amendments.) The work purports to be an exercise by the county of a portion of the State\u2019s delegated sovereignty, and may be regarded as a necessary expense. The character of the work is in a special field. The Legislature, having given special approval to the levy, we see no reason why it should not be classified as a special purpose.\nQuestion 4: In addition to Item 8, we are of opinion and hold that the levy for accountant\u2019s salary, Item 7, is for a special purpose. The position and duties of county accountant were created under the County Fiscal Control Act, Public Laws 1927, chapter 146. The declared purpose of this act is \u201cto provide a uniform system for all the counties of the State by which the fiscal affairs of the county and subdivisions thereof may be regulated, to the end that accumulated deficits may be made up, and future deficits prevented, either under the provision of this act or under the provisions of any other laws authorizing the funding of debts and deficits, and to the end that every county in the State may balance its budget and carry out its function without incurring deficits.\u201d The office of county accountant with prescribed duties was created with this special purpose in view. The duties of county accountant constitute a \u201cgovernor\u201d by which the speed of the spending motor of county government is regulated. The duties are special in character, and are in addition to the functions of other offices pertaining to the ordinary operation of county government. As to the expenses of the position in Clay County, the Legislature has given special approval, and no good reason appears why it should not be considered a special expense. This is the ground upon which it is challenged.\nTbe purposes of Items 2, 3 and 10, tbe listing of taxes, bolding of elections and bolding of courts are general expenses recurring regularly in tbe ordinary course of and as necessary steps in tbe orderly operation of county government. Caring for and feeding jail prisoners is a general expense continuous and ever present. Under tbe well established principles hereinbefore stated, these are not special purposes. Taxes therefor may be levied only within tbe constitutional limitation. There may be circumstances under which these items would be expenses for special purposes, but such circumstances do not arise in the present case.\nIt is appropriate to say that counties must live within their income, and budget their general expenses to fit their income. The Constitution prescribes the limitations.\nThe plaintiff contends that the court erred in ruling that the anticipatory payment was not paid under protest within the meaning of the statute relating thereto. C. S., 7880 (194); C. S., 7979. We think that the ruling is correct and so hold. In order to get the advantage of discount allowed for early payment, plaintiff made payment on 30 June, 1936, under provisions of C. S., 7971 (92), (8). No protest was filed at the time of the payment. Protest on 30 September, 1936, when balance of taxes were paid, is not sufficient.\nHowever, as plaintiff, after demand, brings this action under the provisions of C. S., 7880 (194), it must show strict compliance with the provisions of that statute. Even a substantial compliance is not sufficient.\nIn R. R. v. Brunswick County, 198 N. C., 549, 152 S. E., 627, speaking to the subject of C. S., 7979, the Court said: \u201cOrdinarily, where an action is authorized by statute, and can be maintained only because of statutory authority, the provisions of the statute must be strictly complied with. A substantial compliance is not sufficient.\u201d See, also, R. R. v. Reidsville, 109 N. C., 494, 13 S. E., 865; Wilson v. Green, 135 N. C., 343, 47 S. E., 469; Blackwell v. Gastonia, 181 N. C., 378, 107 S. E., 218.\nThe statute limits plaintiff's recovery to the amount paid under protest.\nThe judgment below, on plaintiff\u2019s appeal, modified in accordance with this opinion, is affirmed.\nUodified and affirmed.\nDEFENDANTS\u2019 APPEAL.\nDefendants challenge the correctness of the rule applied by the court below in ascertaining the amount which plaintiff is entitled to recover by reason of invalid tax levy. The court held that twelve cents of the levy is invalid, and fixed the amount of recovery by multiplying the total valuation by twelve. Defendants contend that, in view of the fact that only $655.39 of tbe total tax assessed was paid under protest, the plaintiff should recover only a proportionate part of amount illegally assessed. The receipt for the anticipatory payment discloses that it was \u201cto apply on its (plaintiff\u2019s) taxes levied in Olay County, North Carp-lina, for the current year 1936.\u201d It will not be presumed that the county will make an illegal levy \u2014 nor that taxpayer intended to pay tax illegally levied. It is manifest that the taxpayer directed the application of payment. But if not, the record fails to disclose how the county made application. The law with respect to application of payment on debts is clearly established.\nThe debtor, at the time of making payment, has a right to direct its application. If debtor fails to apply payment, creditor may make application at any time before suit. But if neither debtor nor creditor applies payment, it will be applied to unsecured or most precariously secured debt, or according to intrinsic justice or the equity of the case.. Lee v. Manly, 154 N. C., 244, 70 S. E., 385; Stone Co. v. Rich, 160 N. C., 161, 75 S. E., 1077; French v. Richardson, 167 N. C., 41, 83 S. E., 31; Supply Co. v. Plumbing Co., 195 N. C., 629, 143 S. E., 248; Dixon v. Osborne, 204 N. C., 480, 168 S. E., 683; Baker v. Sharpe, 205 N. C., 196, 170 S. E., 657.\nThese principles are based upon the existence of a valid debt.\nThe judgment of the court below on defendant\u2019s appeal is\nAffirmed.\nSeawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.", "type": "majority", "author": "Winborne, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Black & Whitaker for plaintiff.", "J. B. Mallonee, J. B. Mallonee, Jr., and T. G. Gray for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NANTAHALA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. THE COUNTY OF CLAY, and W. M. ANDERSON, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and J. P. COLEMAN and J. W. MILLER, Members of the Board of Commissioners of CLAY COUNTY, and R. E. CRAWFORD, Auditor of CLAY COUNTY, and J. M. TIGER, Sheriff, Tax Collector, and Treasurer of CLAY COUNTY.\n(Filed 15 June, 1938.)\n1. Taxation \u00a7 4 \u2014 What; are \u201cnecessary expenses\u201d of county is question for courts.\nWhat class of expenses constitute \u201cnecessary expenses\u201d of a county within the meaning of Art. VII, see. 7, is a judicial question for the determination of the courts, and whether they are needed in a particular county is for the determination of the governing authorities of the county.\n2. Taxation \u00a7 3 \u2014 What is \u201cspecial purpose\u201d within meaning of Art. V, sec. 6, is question for courts.\nWhat is a \u201cspecial purpose\u201d within the meaning of Art. V, sec. 6, of the State Constitution is a matter for judicial rather than legislative determination, since such purpose for which an unlimited tax may be levied with the special approval of the General Assembly must also be a \u201cnecessary expense\u201d of the county within the meaning of Art. VII, sec. 7, which involves both questions of law and fact.\n3. Statutes \u00a7 5b\u2014\nWhen a statute is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part, the constitutional provisions will be given effect when they are separable from the unconstitutional provisions.\n4. Same: Taxation \u00a7 3 \u2014 Courts cannot separate purposes for which tax is levied when item for which tax is levied combines several purposes.\nWhile ordinarily when a statute is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part, only the unconstitutional provisions will be disregarded, when an item for the levy of taxes includes both general and special expenses, the entire item in excess of the constitutional limitation, Art. V, sec. 6, must fail, or if an item combines both a special and an unnecessary expense, the item must fail in its entirety.\n5. Counties \u00a7 12\u2014\nThe county commissioners may amend their records to speak the truth to show which items of taxation are levied for special and which for general purposes, when the records fail to show separately the purposes of a levy but combine several purposes as a unit.\n6. Taxation \u00a7 3 \u2014 Item held to include purpose not having special approval of Legislature, and therefore item fails as in excess of limitation.\nDefendant county levied taxes up to the 15-cent limitation for general county purposes and in addition thereto levied taxes for the purposes of \u201ccommissioners\u2019 pay, expense and board, courthouse and grounds, and county attorney\u2019s fees.\u201d Held: No special approval of the Legislature being shown for county attorney\u2019s fees, the entire item must fail, and furthermore, the other purposes included in the item are for general county expenses and not for a special purpose within the meaning of Art. V, sec. 6.\n7. Same \u2014 Determination of what are general and special expenses of a county.\nItems of expense which are of a constantly recurring nature in the ordinary functioning of the county are not for special purposes for which an unlimited tax may be levied with the special approval of the Legislature, and therefore the expenses of the county commissioners, and expenses in running the courthouse and care of its grounds are for general purposes, while the purchase or building of a courthouse may be a special purpose.\n8. Same \u2014 Item held to include purpose which may not he adjudicated as necessary or unnecessary expense or for special or general purpose.\nDefendant county levied taxes up to the 15-cent limitation for general county purposes, and in addition thereto levied a tax for \u201cupkeep of county buildings, courthouse, county home, poor and paupers, and incidental purposes.\u201d Held: The court may not determine whether the \u201cincidental expenses\u201d are for a necessary or unnecessary purpose, or for a general or special purpose, or how much of the tax is for \u201cincidental expenses,\u201d and therefore the entire item is void as not being for a special purpose with special approval of the Legislature within the meaning of Art. Y, sec. 6.\n9. Same \u2014 Farm agent\u2019s salary is for necessary expense of county and constitutes a special purpose having special approval of Legislature.\nThe encouragement of agriculture is a fundamental objective of the State government, Art. Ill, sec. 17; Art. IX, sec. 14, and a levy of a tax by a county to pay the county farm agent\u2019s salary is for a special purpose having the special approval of the Legislature, C. S., 4666, 4689 (a), 1297 (40), within the meaning of Art. V, sec. 6, for which a tax in excess of the 15-cent limitation may be imposed.\n10. Same\u2014\nA county tax levy to pay the county accountant\u2019s salary is for a special purpose having the special approval of the Legislature (County Fiscal Control Act, Public Laws of 1927, ch. 146), within the meaning of Art. Y, sec. 6, of the State Constitution.\n11. Same\u2014\nOrdinarily, the expenses of listing taxes, holding elections, holding courts, caring for and feeding jail prisoners are general and are not special expenses of the county, and under the facts of this case such purposes are held general expenses, and the tax rate therefor may not exceed the 15-cent limitation imposed by Art. V, sec. 6.\n12. Taxation \u00a7 38c \u2014 Protest in strict compliance with statute is necessary in order for taxpayer to maintain action to recover taxes paid.\nPlaintiff made anticipatory payment of taxes under C. S., 7971 (92), (8), in order to take advantage of the discount. After levy of taxes by the county, plaintiff paid the balance of taxes levied against its property and gave written notice that all the taxes were paid under protest. In an action under C. S., 7880 (194), to recover the taxes paid, held, the anticipatory payment was not made under protest, there being no written protest at the time of that payment, C. S., 7979, a strict compliance with the statute being necessary in an action to recover taxes paid.\n13. Same: Payment \u00a7 8 \u2014 When neither debtor nor creditor directs application of payment, law will make application to unsecured debt.\nSince a debtor may direct application of payment, and if neither debtor nor creditor makes application before institution of suit, the law will apply a payment to the unsecured or most precariously secured debt, when a taxpayer makes anticipatory payment not under protest, and thereafter pays under protest the balance of the taxes levied against his property, in his action under C. S., 7880 (194), to recover the taxes the entire amount paid under protest may be recovered when unlawful levies equal such amount, and the recovery will not be limited to the proportionate part which the unlawful levies bear to the entire tax levy, since it will not be presumed that the county intended to make an unlawful levy or that the taxpayer intended to pay tax illegally levied.\nSeawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff and by defendants from Ervin, J., at November Term, 1937, of Clay.\nAction for recovery of ad valorem taxes alleged to bave been assessed illegally, and paid under protest.\nThe parties waived a trial by jury and by consent agreed that court should bear tbe evidence, find tbe facts and render judgment in accordance therewith.\nThe court made findings of fact substantially as follows: On 30 August, 1936, the defendant Clay County, through its duly authorized board of commissioners, levied a tax for the year 1936 at the rate of $1.90 on the $100 property valuation, made up of sixteen separate items. The purpose and amount of the first twelve aggregating sixty-seven cents are involved in this action. They are as follows : (1) County commissioners\u2019 pay, expense, and board, county courthouse and grounds, and county attorney\u2019s fees, -five cents; (2) tax listing expense, four cents; (3) expense of holding elections, three cents; (4) sheriff\u2019s salary and expense of office, ten cents; (5) register of deed\u2019s salary and expense of office, five cents; (6) clerk Superior Court, salary and expense of office, five cents; (7) county accountant\u2019s salary, five cents; (8) county farm agent\u2019s salary, four cents; (9) upkeep county buildings, courthouse, county home, poor and paupers, and incidental purposes, five cents; (10) holding courts, expense of jail and jail prisoners, fifteen cents; (11) miscellaneous expense of county government not otherwise set forth, tivo cents; and (12) emergency tax for distribution to each of above funds, four cents.\nPlaintiff listed for taxation for said year real and personal property of assessed valuation of $149,397, the tax on which at the above rate of $1.90 amounts to $3,838.55. Prior to the levy and assessment of taxes for tbe year 1936, on 30 June, 1936, and in order that it might receive a discount of three per cent of the taxes, allowed for anticipatory payment, plaintiff paid $2,183.16, less discount to the county accountant, who was duly authorized agent of said county. Receipt therefor contains recital that payment is \u201cto apply on its taxes levied by .Olay County, North Carolina, for the current year 1936,\u201d and that \u201cit is understood that when levy shall have been fixed then an adjustment of any excess or deficiency in this amount shall be made between the parties hereto.\u201d After the levy as aforesaid, and on 30 September, 1936, plaintiff paid to proper officer of Clay County the balance of the tax levied upon the property of plaintiff as aforesaid for the year 1936, to wit, $655.39. At the time of this payment, plaintiff notified defendants that the payment then being made, and the anticipatory payment, were made under protest for that the twelve items of the tax levy hereinabove specified contravene the provisions of Art. Y, sec. 6, of the Constitution of North Carolina, and are void. In the written, protest plaintiff sets forth that the first payment having been made prior to the tax levy, there was no opportunity to determine whether or not the levies would be legal or illegal, and, hence, it makes protest at the first opportunity. On 29 October, 1936, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of C. S., 7880 (194), and C. S., 7979, plaintiff demanded of defendants the refund of $776.86, the amount paid by it on account of alleged excessive, unconstitutional and void levy of fifty-two cents of the sixty-seven cents total of the twelve items in controversy. Plaintiff instituted this action on 5 April, 1937, for the avowed purpose of recovering the sum demanded as above stated upon the grounds specified.\nPlaintiff offered evidence tending to show that written notice was served upon defendants to produce evidence of the approval of the Director of Local Government to levy tax under C. S., 1297 (8%), and requested the court to find, upon failure of defendants to produce such evidence, that no such approval was obtained. The court, however, finds as a fact that the board of commissioners of Clay County secured the approval of said director. The court states that this finding is made \u201csolely upon the basis of the presumption of the regularity of the acts of public officers, and such other presumptions as the law raises in such cases.\u201d Plaintiff excepts.\nNone of the taxes contested by the plaintiff were authorized by any vote of the people of Clay County.\nUpon these findings of fact, and the contentions of the parties, the court below concluded as matters of law in substance that:\n(1) In so far as the taxes assessed and collected exceed fifteen cents on the $100 valuation, the board of commissioners of Clay County purported and undertook to levy such taxes under the provisions of chapter 7 of Public Laws of 1923, of chapter 441 of Public Laws of 1931, and chapter 330 of Public Laws of 1935, as embodied in subdivisions 8% and 8% of C. S., 1297, of chapter 41, Public-Local Laws of 1935, and of section 6 of chapter 146 of Public Laws of 1927, and that the said statutes are a constitutional exercise of the legislative power under Art. Y, sec. 6, and Art. VII, sec. 7, of the Constitution of North Carolina. Exception by plaintiff.\n(2) The purpose for which each of the items of the tax levy declared to be valid is a necessary expense within the meaning of Art. VII, sec. 7, of the North Carolina Constitution. Exception by plaintiff as to Item 8.\n(3) As to the rate per $100 property valuation for each purpose, the court held that: (a) The levies specified in Items 4, 5, 6 and 11, being made under the provisions of Art. V, sec. 6, of the Constitution, were not for special purposes, and are valid only to the extent of the fifteen cents constitutional limitation, and are invalid to the extent of the excess \u2014seven cents.\n(b) The levy specified in Item 12, under the authority of section 6 of chapter 146 of Public Laws of 1927, is invalid for that the statute does not authorize the imposition of the tax.\n(c) The levy specified in Item 3, being made under the provisions of subsection 6 of section 1 of chapter 41 of the Public-Local Laws of 1935 authorizing a levy \u201cfor election expense two cents,\u201d is \u201cfor a special purpose\u201d with \u201cspecial approval\u201d of the General Assembly under the provisions of Art. V, sec. 6, of the Constitution and is valid to the extent of two cents, but invalid as to the one cent excess in rate. Plaintiff excepts to that part of this ruling declaring valid the two cents rate.\n(d) The levies specified in Items 1, 2, 7 and 8, being made under subsections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of section 1 of chapter 41 of Public-Local Laws of 1935, are for special purposes with the special approval of the General Assembly and are within statutory limitations, and within the purview of Art. V, sec. 6, of the Constitution, and valid. Exception by plaintiffs.\n(e) The levy specified in Item 9, under the authority of provisions of the acts of Legislature embodied in subsection 8% of O. S., 1297, is for a special purpose with the special approval of the General Assembly, and is within the statutory limitation, and within the purview of Art. V, sec. 6, of the Constitution, and valid. Exception by plaintiff.\n(f) The levy specified in Item 10, under the combined authority of C. S., 1297 (8%), for five cents of the rate, and subsection 1, section 1, chapter 41, Public-Local Laws 1935, for ten cents, is for special purpose and with the special approval of the General Assembly, and is within the statutory limitation and within the purview of Art. V, sec. 6, of the Constitution. Exception by plaintiff.\n(4) Pursuant to the above rulings on the validity of rates for tax purposes, the tax assessed against defendant is invalid to the extent of twelve cents on the $100 valuation, or $179.28. Exception by plaintiff and by defendants.\n(5) The anticipatory payment 30 June, 1936, was not paid under protest within the meaning of the statute relating thereto, C. S., 7880 (194), but that the payment of 30 September, 1936, was in strict compliance therewith. Exception by plaintiff.\nFrom judgment in accordance with such rulings, the plaintiff and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court and assign error.\nBlack & Whitaker for plaintiff.\nJ. B. Mallonee, J. B. Mallonee, Jr., and T. G. Gray for defendants." }, "file_name": "0698-01", "first_page_order": 762, "last_page_order": 773 }