Opinion

Leonard v. Board of Commissioners

  • 185 N.C. 527
  • 117 S.E. 580
  • 1923 N.C. LEXIS 108
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
May 26, 1923
Status
Published
Author
Hoke
On the bench
Hoke
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.5%

The opinion

Hoke, J.

Plaintiff is seeking to restrain the proposed bond issue, because the statute under which defendants are proceeding was not enacted in accord with Article II, section 14, of the Constitution, which provides, among other things, that all bills of this character shall be read three several times in each house of the General Assembly, and pass three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days and agreed to by each House respectively, and unless the ayes and noes on the second and third readings of the' bill shall be entered in the Journal, the single objection being that on the second reading of the bill the entry on the Senate Journal is as follows:

“Senate Bill 224, House Bill 208, a bill to authorize the county commissioners of Surry County to issue $150,000 of county bonds for the purpose of construction and improving the public roads of Surry County upon the second reading.

“Those voting in the affirmative are Senators Armfield, Baggett, Boyette, Brown of Columbus, Brown of Rockingham, Castelloe, Delaney, Ebbs, Grady, Graham, Griffin, Hargett, Harris of Franklin, Harris of "Wake, Harrison, Heath, Hodges, Johnson of Beaufort, Jones of Alle-ghany, Jurney, Lattimore, McDonald, Mendenhall, Moss, Parker, Ray, Sams, Squires, Tapp, Varser, 'Walker, Williams, Woltz, Woodson — 35.”

Thus, as appellant contends, showing no entries of any negative votes.

The question presented has been directly resolved against appellant’s position in

Comrs. v. Trust Co.,

143 N. C., 110 . In that case, as here, the entry showing that a large majority of the Senate voted for the bill, giving the names of the Senators so voting, with no entry of negative votes, the Court held: “An entry on the legislative journal that 'The' bill passed its second reading, ayes 39, noes., as follows’: then follows a list of those voting in the affirmative, without any reference to those voting in the negative, indicates that the bill passed by a unanimous vote

*530

in that there were no names to be recorded in the negative, and is a compliance with the requirements of Article II, section 14, of the Constitution, that the ayes and noes shall be entered on the journals.

Debnam v. Chitty,

131 N. C., 657 , overruled.”

The authority is decisive, and the judgment of his Honor is

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.