It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that schools and school buildings are not necessary expenses of a municipal corporation. Our school system is founded in the Constitution, and is largely governed and regulated by laws applicable to the entire State. This subject is fully discussed in Hollowell v. Borden, 148 N. C., 256, and cases there cited.
*511It is plain, therefore, that so much of the act as authorizes the issue of bonds for “erecting new graded school buildings” is invalid, as the act fails'to-require a submission, to the qualified voters. But that does not necessarily make the entire act invalid. -
It is equally as well settled that streets,, waterworks, sewerage, and electric lights are necessary expenses of an incorporated municipality, and that a debt may be contracted to pay for them without submitting the proposition to a vote of the electorate. Hotel Co. v. Bed Springs, 157 N. C., 137; Jones v. New Bern, 152 N. C., 64; Commissioners v. Webb, 148 N. C., 122; Fawcett v. Mount Airy, 134 N. C., 125.
It is true, the act does not declare what proportion of the proceeds of the bonds shall be applied to each specific purpose, but that is wisely left to the sound discretion of the city authorities, and in the exercise of such discretion they have issued $99,000 of bonds for streets, waterworks, sewerage, and electric lights, and have issued no bonds for school purposes.
"We fail to see how this invalidates the bonds so issued. Hotel Co. v. Red Springs, 157 N. C., 137; Tyson v. Salisbury, 151 N. C., 468.
It is further contended that no provision is made for the levy of a special tax to pay the interest on the bonds or for the creation of a sinking fund for their ultimate, redemption.
It is stated in the case agreed that the charter of Gastonia limits taxation as follows: '“On all real estate and personal property situated in the city, 'a tax not exceeding one and forty one-hundredths dollars ($1.40) on every hundred dollars value.”
It is further stated that there are no other provisions of the said charter of the city of Gastonia providing for the levy and collection of taxes to pay the interest on said proposed issue of said bonds, and to pay the principal or retire the same, and there are no other special or private act or acts of the Legislature in force providing for the levy and collection of taxes to pay the interest on said bonds or to retire the same.
In the case agreed the revenues and expenses of the city of Gastonia are set out with much detail, but it is unnecessary that we discuss that feature of the case.
*512The city bas the undoubted right to pay the interest on these bonds out of its general revenues, if they are sufficient, but its authorities could not exceed the limitations of taxation fixed in the charter without special permission of the General Assembly.
It would seem, from the facts stated in the case agreed, that the present revenues of the city of Gastonia are amply sufficient to pay the expenses of the city and interest on these bonds, and eventually to create'a sinking fund; but a bond issue of a city or town for necessary municipal expenses, duly authorized by legislative enactment, is not invalid because at the present rate of taxation an insufficient revenue,is obtained for a sinking fund and to pay the annual interest. Lumberton v. Nuveen, 144 N. C., 305; Hotel Co. v. Red Springs, supra.
Resides, the defendant is held to have had full notice of the terms of the special act under which the bonds are issued, as well as of the charter of the city of Gastonia, its revenues, and ability to pay. The defendant purchased the bonds with full knowledge of all these facts. Lumberton v. Nuveen, supra. We see no reason why it should now be relieved from its contract.
The judgment of the Superior Court is
Affirmed,