Board of Commissioners v. Security Trust Co., 164 N.C. 301 (1913)

Dec. 10, 1913 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

164 N.C. 301

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF RUTHERFORD v. SECURITY TRUST COMPANY.

(Filed 10 December, 1913.)

Taxation — Bond Issues — Polling Places — Notice.

While it is required, for the purpose of submitting to the vote of the people the question of issuing bonds, that a correct notice of the polling places be given, this requirement is fully met when the voting places have been established and are well known to the entire electorate of the county, and the voters were fully and formally notified that the election would be held on the specified date “at the various voting precincts of the county as they are now established.” Revisal, sec. 4305.

Appeal by defendant from. Justice., J., at Fall Term, 1913, of Rutherford.

Controversy without action, involving the validity of a proposed bond issue, submitted to Judge M. H. Justice, holding' court in the Eighteenth Judicial District. An 'election having been held under an act of the General Assembly on the question of issuing bonds for road improvement in the county for the sum of $250,000, the measure was approved by .the voters; the bonds prepared and contracted to defendant .company, who.refused to accept same,- on the ground that' in giving the general notice of election the polling places were not specially named. The notice, otherwise full and sufficient, notified the voters that an election would be held on the day stated, “at the various voting precincts of said county as they are now established, and upon said date the polls will be opened at sunrise and closed at sunset, when and where said voters are requested to cast their' votes.” They did appear at the various precincts of the county, a full vote was cast, and the issuance formally approved. His •Honor gave judgment as follows:

This cause coming on to be heard on statement of case in submitting controversy without action, and the same being heard, the court finds the facts as set out in such statement.

It is adjudged, ordered, and decreed, that the notice of election published by the county commissioners, and- signed by "W. G. Harris, chairman-of said board, and dated 8 March, 1913, is in all respects valid and in accordance with law. It was not necessary to state the polling places in said notice under the circumstances under which the election was held. The polling places were fixed and permanent and had been used as such in previous elections, and all electors knew or were presumed to know the polling place in the precinct where he resided and where he was entitled to vote. The court adjudges that the notice of said election was legal and ample for the purpose of said bond election. And it is further ordered, that the defendant accept and pay for said bonds and pay the costs of this proceeding. ' . (Signed) M. H. Justioe,

This 18 November, 1913. Judge Superior Court.

Defendant excepted and appealed.

. S. Oallert for plaintiff.

S. M. Wetmore for defendant.'

Hoke, J.

Tbe judgment of bis Honor is fully approved. It is well understood tbat a correct notice of tbe polling places is considered of tbe substance, and must be properly given; but tbe notice in tbis instance fully meets tbe requirements of tbe law. These voting precincts must be formally established, and can be moved or changed only after due inquiry and notice fully given. Revisal, see. 4305. They are known to tbe entire electorate of tbe county, and when tbe voters were publicly and formally notified tbat tbe election would be held on tbe specified date, “at tbe various voting precincts of tbe county as they are now established,” tbe notice conveyed as full and ample information as could well be given, and on tbe facts in evidence we think bis Honor was fully justified in declaring tbat “tbe polling places were fixed and permanent and bad been used as such in previous elections, and all electors knew or were presumed to know tbe polling' place in tbe precinct where be resided and where be was entitled to vote,” a position which finds further support in tbe full expression bad from tbe voters on tbe question submitted.

Tbe judgment of tbe lower court approving tbe validity of tbe bonds is affirmed. Tbis will be certified, tbat tbe contract between tbe parties may be properly enforced.

Affirmed.