{ "id": 8657083, "name": "D. E. ROBINSON et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY", "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. Board of Commissioners", "decision_date": "1921-12-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "590", "last_page": "593", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 N.C. 590" } ], "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": "181 N. C., 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655878 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11252927 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0141-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 340, "char_count": 7709, "ocr_confidence": 0.443, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1085191109448627e-07, "percentile": 0.5701313088137571 }, "sha256": "371b880c9b72171340d559de07ba01ef5d964b8495d832057058a8f004cde654", "simhash": "1:dfd5c8170acd3892", "word_count": 1329 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "D. E. ROBINSON et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ClabK, C. J\".\nThe proceeds of the bonds in question are to be used for the purpose of erecting a high school building in Lockwood\u2019s Folly Township, but the act provides that said bonds shall be issued \u201cfor and in behalf of Supply High School District,\u201d and said district, as defined in the act and in the resolutions of the board of education of Brunswick County, does not include all of said Lockwood\u2019s Folly Township, and does include a portion of Smithville Township, while it is provided that the tax is to be levied for the payment of said bonds \u201con all the taxable property in said township,\u201d thus making the property within the corporate limits of the town of Shallotte subject to the tax, though it is expressly excepted from said district, for which said bonds are to be issued, whereas the act expressly excepts from said district so much of said township as lies in said corporate limits, and further provides that said bonds shall be issued for and in behalf of so much of Smithville Township as is included in said district, whereas the property situated in Smithville Township is not made subject to the tax to be levied for the payment of said bonds.\nHis Honor, upon the above facts, properly enjoined the defendants from issuing, selling, or disposing of the bonds, and from levying any tax or taxes for the payment thereof. Comrs. v. State Treasurer, 174 N. C., 141.\nFurther, the act is objectionable and invalid because it undertakes to establish a school district, and, being a local or special act, it is prohibited under the express provisions of Art. II, sec. 29, of the Constitution. Trustees v. Trust Co., 181 N. C., 306, in which. Ilohe, J., speaking for a unanimous Court, construing a somewhat similar act (but without the discrepancies pointed out in this statute) wherein the Legislature attempted to create a graded school district in Robeson County, defining its limits by metes and bounds and authorizing a vote to issue bonds for buildings and equipments held that \u201cA statute which lays off or defines by boundary a certain territory as a graded school district within a county, and provides for an issue of bonds upon the approval of the voters therein, for the necessary buildings and maintenance, comes within the recent amendment to our Constitution forbidding the General Assembly from enacting any local or special act to establish or change the lines of school districts, making them void, and requiring that legislation of this character must be by general provisions of law, Const., Art. II, see. 29.\u201d\nThe opinion in that case was 'filed 4 May, 1921, receiving the approval of a unanimous court, and invalidates the act now before us. The discrepancies in this act pointed out in the early part of this opinion may have been due to the fact that it was ratified on the eve of the adjournment of the General Assembly, 8 March, 1921, one of the very last private acts ratified by the General Assembly at that session, and doubtless it did not receive the close scrutiny it should have had.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "ClabK, C. J\"." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert W. Davis for plaintiffs.", "Smith & Ruarle for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "D. E. ROBINSON et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY.\n(Filed 14 December, 1921.)\n1. Constitutional Daw \u2014 School Districts \u2014 Bonds\u2014Taxation\u2014Burdens and Benefits.\nIn order to the validity of the laying off of a school district by statute and the issuance of bonds for school purposes it is necessary that the burden of taxation should rest upon the whole district equally, and when some portions thereof are exempt from taxation and receive the benefits, and other portions are taxed without benefit, the act is unconstitutional and void.\n2. Constitutional Law \u2014 School Districts \u2014 General Legislation \u2014 Special Acts.\nA statute which creates a public school district and allows a bond issue, upon the approval of voters, for its equipment and maintenance, is a local or special act, prohibited by the Constitution, Art. II, sec. 29, requiring that legislation of this character must he by general provision of law.\nAppeal by defendants from Connor, J., at October Term, 1921, of BbuNswiok.\nTbe plaintiffs are residents and taxpayers of Brunswick, and tbe defendants are tbe board of county commissioners of said county.\nOb. 251, Private Laws 1921, entitled \u201cAn act to establish a bigb school district and issue bonds with which to build and equip bigb school buildings, and to provide for tbe payment of said bonds and tbe maintenance and government of said school,\u201d was ratified 8 March, 1921.\nTbe court found as facts that at a special meeting of tbe board of education of that county held prior to 26 February, 1921, said board, by resolutions, established tbe \u201cSupply High School District,\u201d and lines and boundaries thereof, being identical with tbe boundaries of tbe bigb school district established in tbe above act of tbe General Assembly, that said bigb school district was established by said board of education in expectation of tbe passage of said bill, and it was expressly provided in said \u2022 resolutions of tbe board that said district was established \u2022 upon condition that said bill was passed, and that tbe bonds and taxes provided there should be authorized by tbe voters in said district at tbe election to be provided in said bill; and that in pursuance of said act an election was held in said district, and a majority of voters therein voted for tbe bond issue and for tbe tax authorized by said act. It is further found by tbe court that tbe board of county commissioners of Brunswick are now about to issue tbe bonds and levy tbe taxes provided for in tbe aforesaid act, and will do so unless restrained and enjoined in this action.\nIt is provided in aforesaid act: \u201cSaid bonds shall be prepared and issued by order of tbe board of county commissioners of Brunswick for and in behalf of Supply High School District.\u201d It is also found as a fact by tbe court that said Supply High School District, as established by tbe resolutions of tbe board of education and by tbe aforesaid act of the General Assembly, includes a portion of two townships \u2014 Lockwood\u2019s Folly and Smitbville, in said county. It is also provided in said act: \u201cIf at said election a majority of tbe qualified electors shall vote for bigb school bonds, tbe said board of county commissioners of Brunswick shall levy annually thereafter a special tax upon all taxable property in said township for tbe special purpose of paying tbe principal and interest of all bonds issued under this act.\u201d And it is further provided therein: \u201cIn .addition to tbe tax levied to meet tbe payment of tbe principal and interest of said bonds, the board of county commissioners of Brunswick are hereby authorized to levy a special tax upon the taxable property in said high school district for the purpose of defraying the expenses of said high school provided by this act.\u201d It is also found by the court that the high school buildings to be erected with the proceeds of said bonds are to be erected \u201cin Lockwood\u2019s Folly Township,\u201d and all the taxable property in said township is made subject to the tax to be levied for the payment of said bonds and interest on the same; that the district for which said bonds are to be issued does not include all of said township, so much of said township as lies within the corporate limits of the town of Skallotte being expressly excluded from the said district, which further includes a portion of Smithville Township, the taxable property of which is not made subject to a tax to be levied for the payment of said bonds.\nUpon the foregoing facts, the court held that the bonds the defendants are about to issue and to levy the tax for should be enjoined and the defendants appealed.\nRobert W. Davis for plaintiffs.\nSmith & Ruarle for defendants." }, "file_name": "0590-01", "first_page_order": 660, "last_page_order": 663 }