Greensboro v. Scott.

Clark, C. J. The vote of the people having been given in approval of a proposition submitted to them by virtue of an act which forbade the bonds to be disposed of at less than *184 par, tbis transaction by which the defendants bid 5 1-3 per cen. less than par might well be invalid if the validity of these bonds depended upon the ratification of the issue thereof by the people as provided by Chapter 80 Private Laws, 1903, for the amount of the alleged brokerage, its payment to the purchasers, and the frank recital in the act of 1905 that the city of Greensboro could not dispose of its 4 per cent, bonds at par, tend strongly to show that the purpose of this latter act is to repeal the restriction in the act of 1903 against selling- at less than par. New York v. Sands, 105 N. Y., 210. The Act of 1905, “To allow the city of Greensboro to pay a commission for the sale of its four per cent bonds” recites said bonds and “authorized and empowered” the city to “issue, sell and dispose of the said issue of bonds of $250,000” at not less than par but to pay out of the same a commission brokerage of not more than 6 per cent. The object for which the bonds are issued i. e. to provide the city with a water works plant, a sewerage system and for grading and paving its streets, is for its necessary expenses, and hence the issue of bonds for sxich purpose need not be submitted to a popular vote. Fawcett v. Mt. Airy, 134, N. C., 125; Davis v. Fremont, 135 N. C., 538; Tucker v. Raleigh, 75 N. C., 271; Wilson v. Charlotte, 74 N. C., 748. In Robinson v. Golds boro, 135 N. C., 382, the act requiring a popular vote had not been abrogated or modified by a subsequent act as in this case. The Constitution, Article VII., Section 7, requires a popular vote only for the creation of a debt other than “for the necessary expenses” of the municipal corporation. The authorization of the bonds by the Legislature of 1905 and their issuance by the city for such purposes create a valid indebtedness without a popular vote. The judgment below, doubtless by inadvertence, adjudged the costs against the plaintiff, but the city did not appeal. The costs of the appeal will be taxed against the appellants. No Error.