Smith v. Board of County Commissioners of Bladen County

Brogden, J. Under section 1291(a), Consolidated Statutes, as amended by chapter 97, Public Laws, Extra Session, 1924, Bladen County cannot incur a bonded indebtedness in excess of seven per cent of tbe assessed valuation of taxable property as shown by tbe last assessment previous to tbe incurring of any new bonded indebtedness. It was tbe evident purpose of this act to limit tbe indebtedness of counties in order to protect tbe taxpayers from increasing and oppressive tax rates. In tbe present state of tbe record it is impossible for us to determine tbe question as to what constitutes tbe bonded indebtedness of Bladen County. Tbe defendant attaches to its answer an unsigned statement purporting to be made by tbe county auditor, in which statement tbe bonded indebtedness of tbe county is listed at $438,000, but attached to tbe statement is a list of notes which tbe auditor apparently does not include as bonded indebtedness. There is also in tbe record another detailed statement from tbe auditor listing other notes not appearing in tbe defendant’s purported exhibit. In other words, tbe statement from tbe auditor, attached to tbe defendant’s answer, if correct, would indicate that tbe bond' issue comes within tbe limit. Upon tbe other band, tbe other statement from tbe auditor would tend to indicate that tbe bond issue would exceed tbe limit. Tbe question involved is of too much importance to be determined by tbe present record. For instance, there is an item of $16,800 listed as a note in tbe statement marked “Exhibit B,” same being plaintiffs’ exhibit, with a notation that this same amount “is allowed board education should there be need above budget.” We cannot say what this language means for tbe reason that it does not appear whether or not tbe county commissioners have actually made an order to this effect, or whether any note is outstanding evidencing, this amount. There is another item of $86,600 appearing on tbe auditor’s statement as “Exhibit B,” with tbe following notation: “State Notes.” It does not appear whether these notes were signed by tbe county board of education or by tbe county commissioners or for what purpose tbe notes were issued. *777 In suits of tbis character the appellate court may examine the evidence and reach its own conclusion as to the facts. Sanders v. Ins. Co., 183 N. C., 66; Advertising Co. v. Asheville, 189 N. C., 739. The controlling facts cannot be ascertained in the present state of the record and the ease is remanded to the Superior Court from whence it came, to the end that an accurate and definite statement of the indebtedness of Bladen County may be submitted. Advertising Co. v. Asheville, 189 N. C., 739. Remanded.