Hall v. Commissioners of Duplin County ( 1927 )

BbogdeN, J.

The main question presented by the appeal is whether or not Duplin County has authority under the law to issue bonds for the “erection and purchase of schoolhouses” as specified by chapter 81, Public Laws 1927, see. 8, subsec. (a). The identical question was considered by this Court in Frazier v. Comrs., ante, p. 49. Justice Connor, writing for the Court, declares the law thus: “The counties of the State are authorized by this statute to issue bonds and notes for the erection of schoolhouses and for the purchase of land necessary for school purposes, and to levy taxes for the payment of the same, principal and interest, not as municipal corporations, organized primarily for purposes of local government, but as administrative agencies of the State, employed by the General Assembly to discharge the duty imposed upon it by the Constitution to provide a State system of public schools. The limitations of Article VII, sec. 7, are not applicable to bonds or notes issued by a county, as an administrative agency of the State, under authority conferred by the County Finance Act, for the purpose of erecting schoolhouses, and equipping same, or purchasing land neces sary for school purposes. We therefore hold that the board of commissioners of any county in the State, upon compliance with the provisions of the County Finance Act, has authority and is empowered to issue bonds or notes of the county for the purpose of erecting and equipping schoolhouses, and purchasing land necessary for school purposes, and to levy taxes for the payment of said bonds or notes, with interest on the same, without submitting the question as to whether said bonds or notes shall be issued or said taxes levied, in the first instance, to the voters of the county, where such schoolhouses are required for the establishment or maintenance of the State system of public schools in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

There is no finding of fact as to whether or not in issuing said bonds Duplin County was acting as an administrative agent of the State in providing a State system of public schools, or as to whether the “erection and purchase of schoolhouses” is necessary to provide a six months school term in said county. Under the decisions of this Court, applicable to the question in controversy, these facts are essential to the validity of bonds issued for such school purposes without the approval of the voters. The trial judge made no findings of fact and an inspection of the record does not disclose the necessary and essential facts, and for this reason the cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Duplin County for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Eemanded.