Brooks v. . Avery County

Clarkson, J. The defendant, Avery County, owes $110,000 and is unable to pay same. In accordance with the statutes in such cases made and provided, it has done all things required by law to issue the funding and refunding bonds of Avery County, North Carolina, in the principal sum of $110,000. The issuance of the bonds has been approved by the Local Government Commission of North Carolina. *842 Tbe following is the preamble to a resolution adopted by the board of county commissioners of Avery County, North Carolina, on 26 March, 1934: “Whereas, the county has outstanding the following described valid indebtedness, which was originally incurred for necessary expenses before 1 July, 1933, and which the county has no funds whatever to pay, and, the taxpayers being already overburdened in the present emergency caused by the extended depression, it is absolutely impossible to collect taxes with which to pay the same, and in order to maintain the credit and dignity of the county, it is necessary to provide for the extension of this its honest indebtedness.” In Commissioners v. Assell, 194 N. C., 412 (418), we said: “The record does show that the proposed bond issue was for necessary expenses of the county and a valid and legal obligation of the county. The subject or subjects of the necessary expense or expenses for special county purposes are not set forth, and nothing else appearing, it is taken for granted that they were for one or more special necessary purposes and funding permissible under Constitution, Art. Y, sec. 6, and the County Finance Act. The special approval has been given by the general act.” S. c., 195 N. C., 119; R. R. v. Cherokee County, 195 N. C., 756; Barbour v. Wake County, 197 N. C., 314; Bolich v. Winston-Salem, 202 N. C., 786. No new debt is created, an extension of time is being secured at a lower rate of interest so the defendant Avery County can meet its honest obligations. The defendant in its brief says: ’“The appellee respectfully submits that there is no principle of law, no rule of equity, and no constitutional inhibition against the validity of the bonds.” We think from the record as presented to this Court that the judgment of the court below should be Affirmed.