Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sing v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1938Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partClarkson, J.

In one aspect I cannot agree with the main opinion:(1) I think the levy of $25.00 included in the budget for the fiscal year ending 30 June, 1938, for the Charlotte “airport” was a necessary expense and it was not such an expense that should be submitted to a vote of the people, under Const, of N. O., Art. VII, sec. 7.(2) I think the governing body of the city of Charlotte has a right to pass an ordinance transferring $5,000, on hand unappropriated and collected as a “contingent fund,” for the “airport.” In the concurring opinion of Devin, J., is the following: “I do not understand that on…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dysart v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  2. Brockenbrough v. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. Adams v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Storm v. Town of Wrightsville BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Tucker v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API