TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reeves ex rel. County of Buncombe v. Buncombe County

M. B. REEVES on Behalf of Himself and All Other Taxpayers of the COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY, CLAUDE L. FELMET, A. L. McLEAN and H. SOLON HYDER, Comprising the Board of County Commissioners of BUNCOMBE COUNTY Et Al.

Reeves ex rel. Cnty. of Buncombe v. Buncombe Cnty., 167 S.E. 452 (N.C. 1933)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 25, 1933
Judges
Brogden
Citations
167 S.E. 452204 N.C. 451933 N.C. LEXIS 316

Opinion of the Court — Brogden

Brogden, J.

Do the two bond issues aggregating $40,000 constitute a county-wide obligation of Buncombe County?

The bonds were issued by virtue of power created by special election in Black Mountain Township. The law forbids the levying of a tax upon the property of one political subdivision for the particular and exclusive benefit of another such subdivision. This proposition was discussed in Commissioners v. Lacy, 174 N. C., 141 , 93 S. E., 482 , and the court promulgated the principle and the limitations thereof as follows: “It is true, also, that a state or county may, as a rule, lend its aid or expend its money in the building and maintenance of public roads anywhere within its borders when it is being done for the public benefit or as a part of a State or county system, but in this instance the improvement is entirely localized. The roads of the differing townships or districts are set apart and a scheme is entered upon by which they can be planned, constructed, and improved entirely under township governance and without reference either to State or county benefit; and when this occurs, the principle is presented that it is not within the legislative power to tax one community or local taxing district for the exclusive benefit of another — a principle which has been directly approved in several recent decisions of this Court and is one very generally accepted.”

Ellis v. Greene, 191 N. C., 761 , 133 S. E., 395 .

The record discloses that the proceeds of both bond issues were spent upon roads and bridges in Black Mountain Township, “which said roads and bridges were later taken over by the county of Buncombe as a part of the highway system of said county, and later taken over by the State Highway Commission, and are now under the control of same.” Manifestly the facts so established, disclose that the project was not one of local or township benefit, supervision and control, but such expenditure was made “for the public benefit or a part of the state or county system.” Hence the law impresses upon the bond issues the character and quality of a county-wide obligation.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1936: 11939: 11965: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Maryland Racing Commission v. Maryland Jockey Club4 A.2d 124 (Md. 1939) · Dissent
  2. Great American Insurance v. High142 S.E.2d 681 (N.C. 1965)
  3. Thomson v. Harnett County184 S.E. 490 (N.C. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Great American Insurance v. High142 S.E.2d 681 (N.C. 1965)
  2. Maryland Racing Commission v. Maryland Jockey Club4 A.2d 124 (Md. 1939) · Dissent
  3. Thomson v. Harnett County184 S.E. 490 (N.C. 1936)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Ellis v. Greene, 133 S.E. 395 (N.C. 1926) 8
Comm'rs of Johnston Cnty. v. Lacy, 174 N.C. 141 (1917) 34
Comm'rs v. State Treasurer, 93 S.E. 482 (N.C. 1917) 17

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