majority"> *624 Stacy, 0. J.

"While the plaintiffs in their brief would repudiate the sale and purchase of the Irwin Creek property in 1923 as unlawful, yet their suit is in affirmation of the purchase of said property. They are now seeking to recover for the city of Charlotte the moneys derived from a sale of said lands. Furthermore, that has long since become an executed transaction, and the question would seem to be academic. Torrence v. Charlotte, 163 N. C., 562, 80 S. E., 53; Harrison v. New Bern, 193 N. C., 555, 137 S. E., 582.

Nor can the limitation on the power of the Park and Recreation Commission “to contract any debt or incur any obligation in excess of the amount of taxes levied by the governing body of the city of Charlotte for park purposes for the current year” be held to prohibit the commissioners of the city of Charlotte from appropriating funds already in hand, derived from the sale of park property, for park purposes, or for a legitimate public use. Adams v. Durham, 189 N. C., 232, 126 S. E., 611; Berry v. Durham, 186 N. C., 421, 119 S. E., 748. It is not proposed that the municipality shall contract any debt or loan its credit so as to involve the imposition of a tax. Hence, this renders Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution, requiring a'vote of the people, except for a necessary expense, inapplicable. Brockenbrough v. Commissioners, 134 N. C., 1, 46 S. E., 28; Gardner v. New Bern, 98 N. C., 228, 3 S. E., 500.

The record presents no exceptive assignment of error of sufficient merit to warrant a new trial or a. reversal of the judgment.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress