Robinson v. Board of Commissioners

ClabK, C. J". The proceeds of the bonds in question are to be used for the purpose of erecting a high school building in Lockwood’s Folly Township, but the act provides that said bonds shall be issued “for and in behalf of Supply High School District,” 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’s 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 “on all the taxable property in said township,” 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. His 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. Further, 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 Constitu *593 tion. 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 “A 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.” The 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. Affirmed.