Commissioners of Cleveland County v. Spitzer
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendants from Adams, J., at chambers, 17 February, 1920, from Mooee. This is a controversy submitted without action under Rev., 803. This action was instituted in Cleveland County by the commissioners thereof, but by consent of parties it was agreed that the judge might hear and render judgment upon the case agreed in vacation and out of the district, and that the judgment should be filed immediately by the clerk of the Superior Court of Cleveland, each party…
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from Adams, J., at chambers, 17 February, 1920, from Mooee. This is a controversy submitted without action under Rev., 803. This action was instituted in Cleveland County by the commissioners thereof, but by consent of parties it was agreed that the judge might hear and render judgment upon the case agreed in vacation and out of the district, and that the judgment should be filed immediately by the clerk of the Superior Court of Cleveland, each party reserving the right to appeal therefrom. From the judgment rendered the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.
On 21 July, 1919, after due advertisement, the commissioners of Cleveland offered for sale $30,000 road bonds issued on behalf of Township No. 11, “bearing 6 per cent interest, by virtue of ch. 122, Laws 1913, and acts amendatory thereof.”
Ch. 122, Laws 1913, authorizing an election upon the issuance of these bonds was regularly enacted in the constitutional mode. By ch. 1886, Laws 1919, also duly enacted, and ratified 8 March, 1919, the aforesaid act was amended to authorize a change in the interest from 5 per cent to 6 per cent. The petition to order this election was filed with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Guire v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- Spratt v. GraySupreme Court of Florida · 1921