
    RALEIGH SAVINGS BANK v. B. R. LACY, State Treasurer.
    (Filed 8 September, 1909.)
    1. Bond Issues — Suit Against the State — State Agency.
    A suit brought by a bidder on State’s bonds against the State Treasurer to .recover a cash deposit made with defendant Lacy as security, that the plaintiff would take and pay for a certain issue thereof in ease they were adjudged to be valicl by the courts, is not a suit against the State, and may be maintained against the treasurer as an agent appointed by the State to make the sale.
    
      2. Bond Issues — Legislative Acts — Aye and No Vote — Separate Days — Constitutional Law.
    Bonds issued by tbe State in aid of its institutions are not unconstitutional because an amendment directing that some of the fund be applied to the settlement oí a deficit in the account . of one of tbe institutions has not passed its readings upon aye and no rote, upon different days, as required by tbe State Constitution, when otherwise the constitutional requirements have been met.
    ActioN beard upon demurrer to tbe complaint by bis Honor, W. B. Allen, Judge, at July Term, 1909, of tbe Superior Court of Wake County.
    His Honor sustained tbe demurrer, and from tbe judgment rendered plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Womacle & Tace for plaintiff.
    
      Attorney-General Biclceti for defendant.
   Brown, J.

Tbe facts admitted by tbe demurrer are as follows: Tbe General Assembly of 1909 authorized an issue of $500,000 of State bonds (chapter 510, page 872, Laws 1909) for purposes connected with tbe maintenance, enlargement and improvement of tbe State hospitals. Tbe bonds were bid off by plaintiff, who deposited $125,000 with the, defendant Lacy as security that plaintiff would take and pay for tbe.bonds in case they were adjudged to be valid by this Court. Under such circumstances we do not conceive this to be in any sense a suit against tbe State, but a proceeding instituted solely to test tbe validity of tbe bond issue between Lacy, tbe agent appointed by tbe State to make tbe sale, and tbe purchaser. Tbe defect in the bonds consists in tbe allegation that tbe ayes and noes were not recorded on two readings in the House of Representatives, as required by tbe Constitution, Art. II, sec. 14. Tbe Journal of tbe House of Representatives shows that tbe bill was read on tbe day of introduction and referred to a committee, and that on tbe 25th day of February, 1909, tbe bill passed its second reading, tbe “aye and no” vote being taken and recorded in tbe Journal. On a subsequent date, namely, 26 February, 1909, tbe bill was taken up as a special order, when and where, before its third reading, tbe following amendment was introduced: “House Bill 1367. Amend section 1 by adding to the end thereof tbe following: 'Provided, that, out of tbe proceeds of said bonds shall be paid the sum of $20,000, deficit existing in the accounts of tbe State Hospital at Morganton, and also tbe sum of $11,000, deficit in tbe account of tbe Eastern Hospital at Goldsboro.’ ” At this point tbe’House Journal reads as follows: “Tbe amendment of Mr. Grabam is adopted. Tbe question recurs upon tbe passage of tbe bill, as amended, on its third reading. Passes its third reading by tbe following vote.” Tbe “aye and no” vote was taken and recorded in tbe House Journal and tbe bill was duly passed and sent to tbe Senate. That it passed tbe Senate in strict accord with constitutional requirements is not questioned.

We are of opinon that tbe bill has become a valid law of tbe State, and that tbe forms of procedure required by tbe Constitution have been observed.

It is true tbe bill was amended on tbe third reading in tbe House, but tbe amendment created no additional debt and placed no additional burden on tbe State, nor does it change the rate of interest or time of payment. It simply directed tbe application of a very small portion of tbe proceeds of tbe bonds to tbe payment of a deficit in tbe accounts of tbe Morganton Hospital. This is one of tbe State’s institutions, for tbe relief of which tbe bond issue was authorized. We think tbe case is fully covered by previous rulings of this Court, in Glenn v. Ray, 126 N. C., 730; Brown v. Stewart, 134 N. C., 357; Commissioners v. Stafford, 138 N. C., 453.

Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.  