Board of Commissioners v. Prudden & Co.

Adams, J. The defendant submits two propositions — first, that the form of the bonds is not such as the statute requires; and, second, that the provision in regard to the issuance and payment of the bonds is indefinite, uncertain, and void. If the first proposition is sound, the second need not be considered. Prior to the adoption of the act codifying- the laws relating to public schools, the trustees of a school district were authorized to issue the bonds of such district in its corporate name. Public Laws 1919, chs. 143, 308; Public Laws, Extra Session 1920, ch. 87, secs. 1, 2; School Com. v. Board of Education, 186 N. C., 643, 648. At the session of 1921 the Legislature provided that bonds thereafter issued by or on behalf of a school district should be issued either in the name of such corporation or in the name of any incorporated official board or body authorized to issue such bonds, or in such other manner as should be authorized by law. Public Laws 1921, ch. 133, sec. 4. It was probably with a view to securing uniformity in all bonds issued pursuant to an election held in a county, special-taxing district, or local-taxing district, for the purpose of acquiring, erecting, enlarging, altering, and equipping school buildings and purchasing sites, that the General Assembly, at the session of 1923, passed an act prescribing in what manner such bonds should be issued, and repealing all laws in conflict with it. Public Laws 1923, ch. 136. This conclusion may be deduced from the obvious purport of the various statutes. Section 257 provides that whenever the county.board of education shall so petition, the board of county .commissioners shall order a special election to be held for the purpose of voting upon the question of issuing bonds; and section 258, “If a majority of the qualified voters of said county or district shall vote in favor of the issuance of such bonds and the levy of said tax, then the board of county commissioners shall have power to issue the said bonds, which shall be issued in the name of the county; but unless the election was held in the entire county, they shall be made payable exclusively out of taxes to be levied in the district.” In the instant ease the bonds have been issued in the name,of “Leg-getts Consolidated School District of Edgecombe County.” The school district, not the county, has promised to make payment to the bearer. The bonds, therefore, have not been issued in conformity with the statute, and the defect is not cured by affixing to the bonds the signature of *798 the chairman and the clerk of the board of county commissioners. The bonds, as pointed out in the statute, should be issued in the name of the county, and should show upon their face that they are payable exclusively out of taxes to be levied in the district. The defect is fatal, and the action was properly dismissed. Comrs. v. Call, 123 N. C., 308, 319; Comrs. v. Payne, 123 N. C., 432, 490; Comrs. v. De Rosset, 129 N. C., 275, 280; 9 C. J., 24; 35 Cyc., 993. The judgment is Affirmed.