
    J. H. EMERY et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY.
    (Filed 3 June, 1921.)
    1. Constitutional Law — Counties—Streams—Bridges—Statutes—Bonds— State Lines — Apportionment of Expenses — Necessary Expenses.
    Our statutes are constitutional and valid, authorizing the county commissioners of any county bordering on another State to pay the' proportion of the cost of building any bridge spanning a river where it is the State line, including cost of approaches, and to issue bonds to raise money to pay the same; and the objection that the building of the bridge is not a necessary county expense, and may require the county to pay more than it should, for that part of the bridge and approaches that lie within the county, is untenable. Const., Art. VII, sec. 7. Martm Oo. v. Trust Oo., 178 N. C., 26, cited and applied.
    2. Same — Population.
    Where a county is authorized by statute to unite in building a bridge over a stream on the State line with another county lying across the stream, in another State, the proportionate cost should be adjusted with a view to the proportionate benefits received by it, which is prima facie in proportion to population, unless the statute authorizes an agreement upon a different basis.
    
      3. Statutes— Counties— Bridges— Streams — State Bines — Necessary Expense — Apportionment of Expense — Courts.
    What proportionate part of expense a county should bear in the building of a bridge and its approaches over a stream on the State line, or whether such expenditures were necessary, are matters exclusively for the Legislature, and not for the courts to determine.
    4. Constitutional Law — Statutes—State Lines — Sti’eams—Bridges—Dele-gated Powers — Counties.
    The authority that a Legislature of this State has to unite with an adjoining State in constructing and maintaining a bridge over a stream on a State line, may be delegated by a general statute to the commissioners of any county lying on the stream, to take proper action, bear the cost, and adjust its contribution with the authorities of the county lying on the other side of the stream. Const., Art. Ill, sec. 29.
    Appeal by plaintiffs from Lane, Jat May Term, 1921, of Mece-LENBURG.
    This action is by tbe plaintiff on behalf of himself and other taxpayers of Mecklenburg County to restrain the defendants, the county commissioners, from advertising, selling and issuing bonds of that county in the sum of $80,000 for the purpose of cooperating with York County, S. C., in building a bridge and approaches thereto over the Catawba River, which is the dividing line between North Carolina and South Carolina.
    The defendant commissioners of Mecklenburg are authorized to issue these bonds by chapter 103, Laws 1919, and chapter 11, Special Session 1919. By the terms of these acts county commissioners of any county are authorized to pay such proportion of the cost of building any bridge spanning a river where it is the State line, including cost of the approaches thereto, and issue bonds to raise the money to pay for the same. These statutes provide that this shall be deemed a necessary expense where a public road or highway has been laid off and there is no passable ford at that point, and the county can contribute to the cost of said bridge and approaches in proportion of its population to that of the county on the other side unless otherwise agreed. The cost is estimated at $120,000, of which Mecklenburg is to furnish $80,000 and York County $40,000, which is according to said proportion.
    The defendants demur upon the ground that they are authorized by the aforesaid statutes, which are referred to in the resolutions, to issue and sell the bonds, which resolutions of the board are attached to the complaint, and that their action is valid and constitutional. The court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Clarkson, Taliaferro and Clarkson for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Cansler & Cansler for defendants.
    
   Claris:, 0. J.

Tbe only question raised by tbe pleadings and judgment and tbe plaintiffs’ exception and assignment of error is tbe constitutionality of tbe statutes authorizing tbe issue of tbe bonds. Tbe plaintiffs contend tbat said acts are in contravention of Art. VII, sec. 7, of tbe Constitution of tbis State, in tbat tbe Legislature thereby authorizes tbe issuance of tbe bonds of tbe county for other than a necessary expense without a vote of tbe qualified voters. They base tbis contention upon tbe ground tbat tbe building of a bridge and the approaches thereto over a river forming tbe State line,, and tbe payment possibly for more than tbat part of tbe bridge and approaches as lie within tbe county, is not a necessary expense of said county. While tbis exact question has not been before tbe Court it is decided in principle in Martin County v. Trust Co., 178 N. C., 26. In tbat ease we held constitutional a statute authorizing tbe issuance of bonds by two adjoining counties to build a bridge and approaches over a stream dividing tbe counties and through five miles of swamp on tbe Bertie side, tbe river lying also wholly in Bertie, while on tbe Martin County side there was only tbe approaches of probably one-fourth of a mile. Tbe Court held constitutional tbat act though $150,000 was to be procured on bonds issued by Martin County and only $50,000 by Bertie. Tbe Court in tbat case fully considered tbe subject and laid down three propositions:

1. Tbe Legislature may authorize adjoining counties to issue bonds in certain proportions for tbe building of a bridge across a dividing stream, and tbe validity of tbe bonds, being for a necessary county expense, does not require tbe issuance to be approved by a vote of'the people.

2. Tbe proportion which a county may contribute to tbe building of a bridge and tbe approaches thereto, over a stream between it and an adjoining county, is a question for tbe Legislature to determine, and is not reviewable by tbe courts.

3. Tbe construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is a necessary expense which tbe Legislature may cast upon tbe State at large or upon tbe territory specially and immediately benefited, though tbe work may not be wholly within tbe territory or tbe actual structure not in exact proportion to tbe contribution of each county, as tbe benefit to be derived by each must be considered.

Tbat case settled tbat tbe proportionate part of tbe expense which should be borne by each of tbe counties was a legislative and not a judicial question, and tbat tbe approaches to tbe bridge were a necessary and therefore an integral part of tbe cost of constructing tbe same.

The principle involved and decided in Martin Co. v. Trust Co., supra, we think applies to tbis case. We see no ground to differentiate between tbe two cases because in tbis instance tbe dividing stream is a State line. Tbe bridge being a necessary expense, tbe proportionate cost' should be adjusted witb a view to tbe proportionate benefit received by tbe county of Mecklenburg, wbicb is prima facie, in proportion to population, unless (as authorized by tbe statute) tbe county commissioners agree witb tbe authorities of tbe other county upon a different basis.

Tbe Legislature of this State could agree witb tbe Legislature of an adjoining State to unite in constructing and maintaining a bridge over a stream where it is a State line. Such public bridge can be built only by joint authority of tbe two States, and instead of creating a special commission, tbe General Assembly has seen fit by a general statute (under Cons.-, Art. II, sec. 29) to authorize tbe commissioners of any county lying on such stream to take proper action, tbe cost to be borne by tbe county whose public roads will cross tbe stream, and to adjust its contribution witb tbe authorities of tbe other county, whether it lies in this State or in another State.

Tbe judgment overruling tbe demurrer is

Affirmed.  