{
  "id": 8653251,
  "name": "ROAD COMMISSIONERS v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Road Commissioners v. County Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1923-10-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "205",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 202"
    }
  ],
  "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": "143 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656054
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652284
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 U. S., 96",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3412536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/78/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N. C., 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269666
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0196-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 390,
    "char_count": 6903,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.651849444631314e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8241260397806977
    },
    "sha256": "f6553057af449d4f19eb7507a2b56d7250a8f76e21d86885366ed9b667a576e4",
    "simhash": "1:e664cac21fef6269",
    "word_count": 1201
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROAD COMMISSIONERS v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HoKE, J.\nOn tbe bearing it was made to appear tbat chapter 334, Public-Local Laws of 1915, provided for a bond issue of Davidson County of $300,000, and authorizing a tax levy not to exceed 30 cents for tbe creation of a sinking fund and for maintenance of roads, etc. Chapter 129, Public-Local Laws of 1917, provides tbat tbe board of road commissioners in their discretion shall determine tbe amount of tax to be levied for road purposes, and tbat tbe county commissioners shall levy sucb tax as tbe road commissioners shall find to be necessary, \u201cnot to exceed tbe amount as provided by law.\u201d Chapter 233, Public-Local Laws of 1919, provides tbat tbe board of county commissioners, at tbe time other road taxes are levied and in addition to tbe taxes now authorized to be collected under existing law, shall levy annually a special tax of 30 cents on tbe $100, etc., valuation for tbe purpose of maintaining tbe present public roads and extending tbe same and paying tbe outstanding indebtedness of tbe board of road commissioners.\nThe General Assembly of 1923 enacted a statute'as follows:\nH. B. 308; S. B. 407.\nAN Act to Amend Chapter 129, Public-Local Laws 1917, and to Limit Amount oe Tax to be Levied eor Eoads in Davidson County.\nThe General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:\nSection 1. That chapter 129, Public-Local Laws, Session of 1917, be amended as follows: That there be added to section 2 of said act the following: \"Provided, that the amount of taxes to be levied shall not exceed 35 cents on each $100 of valuation of taxable property.\u201d\nSec. 2. That the board of county commissioners of Davidson County shall levy each year at the time of levying taxes for road purposes, as provided by law, such an amount as the board of road commissioners of said county shall in writing request for such year, however, not to exceed 35 cents on each $100 of taxable property in said county.\nSec. 3. That this act shall be in force and effect from and after its ratification.\nFrom a proper perusal of this the legislation applicable we concur in the view that the force and effect of the act of 1923 is to restrict the amount of taxation for any and all road purposes to the 35 cents as specified. It is true, as contended by appellant, that implied repeals are not favored, and that where there are two statutes relating to the same subject passed at the same or different sessions, and there is no express repealing clause, that both must be given effect in so far as their different provisions are not inconsistent with each other, but it is also true that, to the extent that they are necessarily repugnant, the later statute shall prevail. Bramham v. Durham, 171 N. C., 196-198.\nThis decision quotes with approval from the opinion of Associate Justice Fields in U. S. v. Tyner, 78 U. S., 96, to the effect \u201cThat where there are two acts on the same subject the rule is. to give effect to both if possible, but if the two are repugnant the latter act and without any repealing clause operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal of the former.\u201d\nAnd in determining whether there is a repugnancy, it is the approved rule here and elsewhere that the intent of the Legislature must be sought primarily in the language used,'and \u201cwhere this is free from ambiguity and expresses plainly, clearly and distinctly the sense of the framers, a resort to other means of interpretation is not permitted.\u201d Kearney v. Vann, 154 N. C., 311; In re Applicants for License, 143 N. C., 1.\nIn this last decision citation is made from Black on Interpretation of Laws, sec. 26, as follows: \u201cThe meaning of a statute must first be sought in the language of the statute itself,\u201d and further, \u201cIf the language is plain and free from ambiguity and expresses a simple, definite and sensible meaning, that meaning is conclusively presumed to be the meaning the Legislature intended to convey.\u201d And from Lewis\u2019 Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2d Ed.), sec. 267, \u201cWhere the intention of the- Legislature is so apparent on the face of the statute that there can be no question of its meaning, there is no room for construction.\u201d\nConsidering the statute of 1923 in the light of these recognized prin- \u2022 ciples, it is clear that the meaning and purpose of the Legislature is to restrict the amount of taxation for road purposes in Davidson County. to the 35 cents on the $100. It so provides in express terms. An interpretation that is in full accord with the title: \u201cAn act to amend chapter 129, Public-Local Laws of 1917, and to limit the amount of tax to be levied for roads in Davidson County.\u201d\nThis view is confirmed by the fact that the tax valuation of Davidson County in 1923 is more than double that which prevailed in the years when the former acts were passed, and this no doubt affords a reason for the action of the Legislature in the premises.\nWe are of opinion that his Honor has made correct disposition of the matter before him, and his judgment denying the writ is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HoKE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walser & Walser, Phillips & Bower and J. R. McCrary for plaintiff.",
      "W. 0. Bur gin and P. V. Critcher for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROAD COMMISSIONERS v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.\n(Filed 3 October, 1923.)\n1. Statutes \u2014 Interpretation\u2014Intent\u2014Repugnances\u2014Repeal.\nTbe provisions of a later statute that are repugnant to those of a former one will be construed to repeal so much thereof as is repugnant without any specific repealing clause, and in construing the later act, the intent of tlie Legislature will be given effect primarily as interpreted from the language therein used, and where this is free from ambiguity and expresses plainly, clearly and distinctly the sense of its framers, a resort to other means of interpretation is not permitted.\n3. Same \u2014 Taxation\u2014Roads and Highways.\nA statute entitled to limit the amount of tax authorized for road district purposes, authorized by a prior law, and in the body of the act requiring that the amount of the levy should not exceed a certain rate on the $100 valuation of the taxable property, repeals so much of the former law as is repugnant thereto, without expressly repealing it; and the increased valuation of the taxable property may be considered as an aid to this interpretation.\nMandamus PROCEEDINGS, beard before bis Honor, Shaw, J., at August Term, 1923, of Davidson.\nTbe road commissioners of tbe county baving duly certified to defendants and board of assessors tbat a road tax of 45 cents on tbe hundred dollars was necessary for carrying out tbe road program of tbe county for tbe years 1923-24, as provided by law, demanded of defendants tbat sucb levy be made by defendant board. Defendants contending tbat under tbe statutes applicable they could not exceed a rate of 35 cents, declined to levy tbe 45-cent rate, whereupon present proceedings were instituted to compel compliance. Tbe court entered judgment denying tbe writ and plaintiff board excepted and appealed.\nWalser & Walser, Phillips & Bower and J. R. McCrary for plaintiff.\nW. 0. Bur gin and P. V. Critcher for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 266,
  "last_page_order": 269
}