(1) Was the town of Hamilton Lakes a duly created and organized municipality?
(2) Are the bonds issued by the municipality valid?
The municipality was created by chapter 161 of the Private Laws of 1925. The act established the boundaries of the town and provided that the corporate powers thereof should be vested in and exercised by a mayor, town council and town manager, etc. The act further provided for the establishment of a public school system and for elections as provided by law. The council was empowered to license, tax and regulate trades, occupations and to condemn lands, pass ordinances and fix rates for public service corporations, to levy and collect taxes on real and personal property within the corporate limits, pass ordinances for the collection of taxes, to establish and maintain a fire department and a police force, and to grade, pave and repair streets and sidewalks and make such improvements thereon as it might deem best for the public good, etc.
The Constitution does not restrict the power of the Legislature to create a municipal corporation and to define its territory. These matters are within the discretion of the lawmaking body. Penland v. Bryson City, 199 N. C., 140, 154 S. E., 88; Chimney Rock v. Lake Lure, 200 N. C., 171, 156 S. E., 542. Governmental and municipal powers are specifically delegated to the municipality with minuteness of detail and *520comprehensiveness o£ function. Indeed, this phase of the case is not extensively-debated in the briefs of counsel, and it was stipulated that the municipality had been organized under the provisions of chapter 161 of the Private Laws of 1925 after due notice as required by law. Consequently the first question of law must be answered in the affirmative.
The real controversy in the case involves the validity of the bond issues and the levying’ of taxes to pay the same. The bond issues are attacked upon two lines: First, that the bonds are not necessary expenses of the town of Hamilton Lakes within the purview of Article YII, section 7, of the Constitution of North Carolina; and second, that the obligations were issued without a vote of the people, as contemplated in said section. It is contended that there was no necessity for grading and paving streets and sidewalks or for installing Avater and sewer systems for the benefit of four or five families living upon a farm of approximately 1,400 acres. It is further contended that the expression “necessary expenses” of a municipality must have some relation to public benefits for a substantial number of persons, and that the constitutional provision has no application to land speculations and subdivisions of a suburban farm. TIoAveArer, an examination of the legal question involved must begin Avith the assumption that the town of Hamilton Lakes is a municipal corporation, duly organized and created and endowed by the sovereign with specific governmental poAvers. The population of a designated territory imposes no limitation upon the lawmaking power in creating municipalities. If the tOAvn of Hamilton Lakes is a municipal corporation, it had the power by legislative authority to issue bonds for necessary expenses. “The courts determine what class of expenditures made or to be made by a municipal corporation come under the definition of ‘necessary expense.’ The governing authorities of the municipal corporations are vested Avith the power to determine when they, are needed, and, except in cases of fraud, the courts cannot control the discretion of the commissioners.” Fawcett v. Mt. Airy, 134 N. C., 125, 45 S. E., 1029. See, also, Storm v. Wrightsville Beach, 189 N. C., 679, 128 S. E., 17; Henderson v. Wilmington, 191 N. C., 269, 132 S. E., 25. That is to say, the courts determine whether a given project is a necessary expense of a municipality, but the governing authorities of the municipality determine in their discretion Avhether such given project is necessary or needed in the designated locality. The pertinent decisions of this Court are all to the effect that water systems, sewer systems and street improArements are necessary gOA^ernmental expenses of a municipality. Therefore, no vote of the people was required.
The plaintiff further contends that the bonds are void for the reason that there were certain irregularities in the issuance thereof, and partieu-*521lai'ly tbat tbe majority of tbe commissioners of tbe town of Hamilton Labes lived without tbe corporate limits of tbe town. This situation was doubtless called to tbe attention of tbe Legislature and chapter 98 of tbe Private Laws of 1927 was duly enacted. This statute expressly validated all tbe bonds in controversy issued by tbe town. “Tbe Legislature may ratify and confirm any act which it might lawfully have authorized in tbe first instance where tbe defect arises out of tbe neglect of some legal formality and tbe curative act interferes with no vested right.” Sechrist v. Commissioners, 181 N. C., 511, 107 S. E., 503; Brown v. Hillsboro, 185 N. C., 368, 117 S. E., 41; Construction Co. v. Brockenbrough, 187 N. C., 65, 126 S. E., 7. Manifestly, tbe lawmaking power of tbe State could authorize tbe town of Hamilton Lakes to issue bonds for necessary expenses, and also to clothe designated persons with tbe power to execute same for and in behalf óf tbe municipality. Hence tbe said bonds of tbe town of Hamilton Lakes are valid obligations of said municipality.
It appears from the record tbat tbe claim of Zeigler Brothers has been reduced to judgment and no .discussion of tbat phase of tbe case is necessary.
Certain actions were instituted in tbe United States Court upon certain bonds in controversy, brought by tbe Ohio Savings Bank and Trust Company v. Town of Hamilton Lakes and by tbe First National Bank of Oak Harbor v. tbe same defendant. Tbe plaintiffs intervened in said action and tbe cause was finally disposed of by tbe opinion in tbe case of Starmount v. Ohio Savings Bank and Trust Co., 55 Fed. (2d), p. 649. This case discusses every phase of the present litigation with clearness and precision and determines tbe controverted questions adversely to the plaintiff. However, it is not deemed necessary to discuss tbe effect of the Federal decision as the validity of tbe. bonds must be upheld by application of tbe principles established in the decisions of this State.
Affirmed.