Mitchell v. Board of Education of Haywood County

Clarkson, J. The question involved in this appeal: Does the title to the school property owned by the board of education of Haywood County pass-to the trustees of the New Enlarged Special School District under section 5490(1), N. C. Code, 1927, Anno. (Michie), Public Laws 1924, ch. 131, sec. 12, when the district has been enlarged and the trustees of the said new district have sufficient property turned over to it for its new school purpose and elect not to use the six pieces of property in controversy owned by the board of education of Haywood in said new district for school purposes as soon as said trustees could officially act as trustees of the said new district. Who owns the six lots of land described in the agreed case? We think the board of education of Haywood County. N. 0. Code, 1927, Anno. (Michie), sec. 5490(a), Public Laws N. C., 1924, ch. 131, sec. 1, is as follows: “It shall be lawful to create school districts, whether the same be enlargements of existing school districts or not, in the manner provided by this article.” In subsequent sections the procedure is provided for. In creating the new enlarged school district the statute has been complied with, but this controversy involves a construction of a section of the statute since the district has been created. The fee simple to the six pieces of land in controversy is in the board of education of Haywood County. The board of education has conveyed to the trustees of the new enlarged Special Charter School District all land necessary on which is located the new school buildings. The facts show that the trustees of the new enlarged Special Charter School District are not now using the six pieces of property in controversy, and *58 “do not deem it necessary to use said property hereafter for public school purposes.” These six pieces before the creation of the new district were used for school purposes. The statute above mentioned (Michie, supra, sec. 5490(1), is as follows: “When the new district shall come into existence as herein-before provided, all school property, real and personal within the same, except properly mairdcdned by the county for other thasn district purposes, ilw debt for which property has not been assumed by the new district .shall automatically pass in the case of a new special charter district to the board of trustees thereof, and in the case of a local tax district, to the county board of education for the use of the district, but it shall nevertheless be the duty of all boards and bodies holding any such property to convey the same formally by deed and other proper conveyance and every such deed shall be promptly recorded.” The statute is not clear, and if the exception was not in it “except properly maintained by the county for other than district purposes, the debt for which property has not been assumed by the new district," etc., there wuuld be no question that this statutory transfer could be made for another public purpose — the new enlarged Special Charter School District. Greensboro v. Simpson, 188 N. C., 737. The new district has come into existence, and the board of trustees of the new enlarged district have had all the land transferred to it within the same by the board of education needed for its present school purposes, except the property in controversy — some six pieces former school districts — that had theretofore been maintained by the county board of education, and is not now needed for the enlarged Special Charter School District purposes. We think it remains the property of the board of education. The only assumption of debt was that of the Canton Special Charter District and the Patton District. No debts were assumed by the new enlarged Special Charter School District on the six pieces of property in controversy. The plaintiffs contend that the above construction would be unfair, to the new enlarged Special Charter School District, as it carried the burden, but does not get the benefits of the proceeds of the sale of these six pieces of property to aid in this consolidation, which it is the manifest intention of the General. Assembly to encourage. We cannot construe the exception ambiguous and meaningless, when a reasonable construction can be given it. although it may work a hardship. The judgment below is Affirmed.