Hicks v. . Greene County

Coknor, J. This appeal was submitted to this Court without oral argument, under Eule 10, 192 N. O., p. 844. It has been considered only on tbe record and on tbe printed briefs of counsel for both parties. *76 It is apparent from a reading of the statement of facts agreed upori and submitted to the court below, and of the briefs filed in this Court, that there is no question in difference between the parties hereto, which might be the subject of a civil action for the determination of their respective rights on the facts agreed. C. S., 626. There is no real controversy between the parties, requiring a judgment of the. Court to determine these rights. Both parties are asking for the same thing, to wit: that the questions propounded be answered by the Court relative to the validity of the bonds, which the board of commissioners of Greene County have issued and sold, and which the purchaser of said bonds has declined to accept and pay for on the advice of his attorney that the validity of the bonds is at least doubtful. The real controversy arising upon the facts agreed is not between the parties hereto, but between the board of commissioners of Greene County and the purchaser of the bonds. Neither the answers to the questions propounded nor the judgment in accordance therewith will be binding on the purchaser of the bonds, who is not a party to this proceeding. Under the authority of Burton v. Realty Co., 188 N. C., 473, 125 S. E., 3, this proceeding must be dismissed. C. S., 626 confers no jurisdiction on the courts of this State to render an advisory opinion as to the law upon facts agreed. The purpose of the statute, as appears from its language and as uniformly construed by this Court, is to enable parties to a question in difference, which might be the subject of a civil action, where they agree as to the facts involved, to submit the facts to the Court, for its decision of the question in difference, and for its judgment in accordance therewith, without the expense and formalities required for a civil action. Farthing v. Carrington, 116 N. C., 315, 22 S. E., 9; McKethan v. Ray, 71 N. C., 165. Where, as in the instant, case, the parties submit to the Court questions of law arising upon facts agreed, without showing that they have rights involved in the questions, upon which they would be entitled to judgment, in a civil action the Court is without jurisdiction, under C. S., 626, and should decline to consider the questions submitted for its decision. Inasmuch' as the principal question sought to be presented by this appeal for decision by this Court, involves the construction of chapter 694, Public-Local Laws of 1927, it may be noted that this statute was ratified on 9 March, 1927, and by its express terms has been in full force and effect since said date. It has not been amended, modified or repealed by any subsequent statute. It is therefore now in full force and effect. The County Finance Act (chapter 81, Public Laws of 1927) was ratified on 7 March, 1927, and by its express terms has since been in *77 full force and effect. The bonds issued and sold by the board of commissioners of Greene County, under the provisions of this act are valid, unless the provisions of chapter 694, Public-Local Laws of 1927, are applicable to these bonds. By the provisions of chapter 694, Public-Local Laws of 1927, the board of commissioners of Greene County are forbidden to issue any bonds of said county, without the approval first obtained of a majority of the qualified voters of said county, with certain exceptions which do not include bonds for refunding bonds issued and outstanding at the date of its ratification. It would seem that the statute is applicable to refunding bonds, and that such bonds are not valid, unless their issuance has been approved as required by the statute. We find nothing in the language of the statute which shows a contrary intention of the General Assembly. For the reasons stated in this opinion the proceeding is Dismissed.