The opinion
Connor, J.
The defendants rely upon the decision of this Court in Fawcett v. Mt. Airy, 134 N. C., 125 , to sustain their resolution to issue the bonds without the approval of the voters of the city. It is there held that, in the absence of any restrictive provision in the charter or by special or general legislation, the power may be conferred upon municipal corporations to contract debts and issue bonds for necessary expenses, and that furnishing light and water is a necessary expense.
The facts set forth in the pleadings in this case, however, *384 bring it directly within the principle announced in Wadsworth v. Concord, 133 N. C., 587 . The charter expressly provides that bonds for the purpose set out may be issued to the amount of two hundred thousand dollars when the proposition has been submitted to and approved by the voters. The principle upon which that case is based is thus stated— quoting Dillon on Municipal Corporations, section 449 : “Respecting the mode in which contracts by corporations should be made, it is important to observe that when, as is sometimes the case, the mode of contracting is specially and plainly prescribed and limited, that mode is exclusive and must bo pursued, or the contract will not bind the corporation.” The power to issue bonds for the purpose of establishing an electric plant (and we think this language includes making adequate provision for lighting the city) is expressly conferred subject to the approval of the qualified voters of said city. Certainly, until this power is exhausted, it excludes any other. It would be an idle thing for the General Assembly to prescribe the method by which and the terms upon which a municipal corporation could issue bonds, if, in disregard of such provisions it could proceed to do so. It is clearly within the power of the General Assembly to restrict, which of course includes the power to prescribe, the terms upon which it may be exercised. Const., Art. 8, section 4. The judgment must be
Affirmed.