TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Board of Commissioners v. Assell, Goetz & Moerlin, Inc.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF McDOWELL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. ASSELL, GOETZ & MOERLIN, Inc.

Bd. of Comm'rs v. Assell, Goetz & Moerlin, Inc., 143 S.E. 474 (N.C. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 6, 1928
Judges
ClaeKSON
Citations
143 S.E. 474195 N.C. 7191928 N.C. LEXIS 195

Opinion of the Court — ClaeKSON

ClaeKSON, J.

This is a petition by appellee to rehear the above action. The Court’s decision is set forth in Comrs. v. Assell, 194 N. C., p. 412.

The Court said, in that opinion, at p. 418: “The 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 *720 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.” This was the sole question before the Court presented by the appeal.

Appellees on their petition to rehear seek to present the following question: “Is 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,’ 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?” This question was not and is not presented by the record.

Petition dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11929: 11931: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barbour v. County of Wake148 S.E. 470 (N.C. 1929)
  2. Glenn v. Board of County Commissioners159 S.E. 430 (N.C. 1931)
  3. Mayo v. Commissioners of Beaufort County144 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Glenn v. Board of County Commissioners159 S.E. 430 (N.C. 1931)
  2. Barbour v. County of Wake148 S.E. 470 (N.C. 1929)
  3. Mayo v. Commissioners of Beaufort County144 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list