The opinion
Stacy, J.,
after stating tbe case: ' Tbe defendant contends tbat tbe new Swannanoa Consolidated Public School District was not legally established in tbat tbe three nonspecial tax districts, Bee Tree, Pickens, and Azalia, were not allowed to vote on tbe question of consolidation. This was not necessary under Public-Local Laws 1915, cb. 722, a special statute applicable only to Buncombe County. Indeed, for tbe bare purpose of consolidation, no election is necessary under tbe general law. C. S., 5473. Tbe county board of education in any county may, however, in its discretion, ask for an election on tbe question of consolidation or the new formation of a district, and submit tbe question of a special tax or tbe issuance of bonds at tbe same time, but it is not required to do so. C. S., 5526.
Hicks v. Comrs.,
183 N. C., 394 ;
Perry v. Comrs.,
183 N. C., 389 . Of course, where tbe authorities elect to proceed in a
*487
given way, under a general or special statute, they are required to observe the provisions of the law under which they are proceeding.
Proctor v. Comrs.,
182 N. C., 56 . It is only when it comes to levying special taxes and issuing bonds that
more
serious questions arise.
Hicks v. Comrs., supra; Perry v. Comrs., supra.
In regard to the election for the special maintenance tax and the election on the question of issuing bonds in the ease at bar, it is contended by the defendant that the original nonspecial tax territory should have voted separately on both questions. Such a separate vote for the authorization of the bonds is not required by Public-Local Laws 1915, eh. 722. And after the consolidation of school districts, even under the general law, it is provided that they “shall have authority to vote special tax rates for schools on the entire district in accordance with law.” Public Laws 1921, ch. 179.
Furthermore, in those cases where the nonspeeial tax territory is required to be given a separate vote under C. S., 5530, and although the district may vote as a whole, yet if a favorable majority vote be cast in said election by the voters in the nonspecial tax territory, counting said vote separately, the election will be upheld.
Burney v. Comrs., ante,
274;
Barnes v. Comrs., ante,
325.
But the validity of the consolidation and formation of this particular district, and also the validity of the bonds now in question were both approved by us in the recent case of
Wilson v. Comrs.,
183 N. C., 638 , and we must adhere to that decision. See, also,
Comrs. v. Malone,
179 N. C., 110 , and
Miller v. School District, ante,
197.
We observe, however, that a poll tax as well as a property tax was authorized by both elections held on 14 December, 1921. This is not a county tax, but a special district tax. Hence, the poll tax must be held to be invalid under the constitutional amendment of 1920.
Hammond v. McRae,
182 N. C., 754 . See, also,
Burney v. Comrs., supra.
The property tax will be sustained. But it may be well to note that as to all liabilities heretofore incurred, and bonds previously issued under statutes or elections, requiring the levy of a tax on both property and poll, the authority and obligation to levy a tax on both will continue; for a state, no more by constitutional amendment than by statute,, will be permitted to impair the vested rights of creditors held by them in assurance of their debt.
Smith v. Comrs.,
182 N. C., 149 .
As thus modified, the judgment of his Honor will be affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.