{
  "id": 11271728,
  "name": "L. E. RANKIN v. GASTON COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rankin v. Gaston County",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "683",
  "last_page": "684",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 683"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 U. S., 83",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3625102
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/185/0083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Md., 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1868592
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/18/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill., 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3187798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/168/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3419,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2340222855640283e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6063361222990221
    },
    "sha256": "7699c6d3135ff42fe62e2570a89a02bdf00ebfbe5cd6087ab3210b120ebd6b57",
    "simhash": "1:a4877e3074fcfb68",
    "word_count": 579
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. E. RANKIN v. GASTON COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "\"Walker, J.\nTbis action was brought to enjoin tbe defendant, through its board- of commissioners, from issuing bonds to the amount of $100,-000 for the building of necessary bridges in the county and funding and liquidating indebtedness contracted for that purpose. The court refused the injunction, and plaintiff appealed.\nThe same question is raised in this case, as to the time when the recent constitutional amendments took effect, as was presented in Reade v. City of Durham, ante, 668. We there decided that they were not of force until 10 January, 1917, and tbe act of the Legislature authorizing the bond issue in this case was passed 9 January, 1917. This case, in the respect mentioned, is governed by that decision.\nIt is contended that if the bond act is otherwise valid, the .act of 19.17, chapter 284, to provide for the issuing of bonds for the improvement of the public roads of the State requires that the issue of these bonds should first be approved at an election by a majority vote; but chapter 284 was evidently intended to be prospective in its operation, and does not purport to repeal or modify local acts. Section 62 of the act provides: \u201cThis .act shall not be construed so as to repeal any private or local law enacted for the purpose of construction, altering, or improving the public roads of any county.\u201d The general rule is thus stated in.Black on Interpretation of Laws, p. 117: \u201cA local statute enacted for a particular municipality for reasons satisfactory to the Legislature is intended to be exceptional and for the benefit of such municipality. It has been said that it is against reason to suppose that the Legislature, in framing a general system for the State, intended to repeal a special act which local circumstances made necessary.\u201d It was said in Branham v. Durham, 111 N. C., 196, adopting the quotation from Black on Interpretation of Laws, supra: \u201cIt is established that where a general and a special statute are passed on the same subject, and the two are necessarily inconsistent, it is the special statute that will prevail, this last being regarded usually as in the nature of an exception to the former, Cecil v. High Point, 165 N. C., pp. 431-435; Comrs. v. Aldermen, 158 N. C., pp. 197-198; Bahnke v. The People, 168 Ill., 102; Stockett v. Bird, 18 Md., 484, a position that obtains though.the special law precedes the general, unless the provisions of the general statute necessarily exclude such a construction. Rodgers v. U. S., 185 U. S., 83; Black on Interpretation of Laws, p. 117.\u201d\nThis answers the points raised in defendant\u2019s brief.\nThere was no error in the ruling of the court.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "\"Walker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carpenter & Carpenter for plaintiff.",
      "Mangium, & Woltz for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. E. RANKIN v. GASTON COUNTY.\n(Filed 30 May, 1917.)\nRoads and Highways \u2014 General Statutes \u2014 Local Laws \u2014 Prospective Acts\u2014 Bonds \u2014 Constitutional Law.\nChapter 284, Laws 1917, requiring that the proposition for issuing bonds for public roads should first be approved at an election by a majority vote, is prospective in its effect, and by section 62 does not purport to repeal or modify local laws \u201cenacted for the purpose of constructing, altering, or improving the public roads of a county.\u201d As to the time of the effectiveness of the constitutional amendments of 1916, see Rea&e v. Durham, ante, 668.\nCivil actioN, tried before Cline, J., at Spring Term, 1917, of GastoN. Plaintiff appealed.\nCarpenter & Carpenter for plaintiff.\nMangium, & Woltz for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0683-01",
  "first_page_order": 741,
  "last_page_order": 742
}