Case Title: Hobbs v. County of Moore

Citation: 149 S.E.2d 1, 267 N.C. 665

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1966-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
149 S.E.2d 1 (1966) 267 N.C. 665 James D. HOBBS and John C. Grier, Jr., on behalf of Themselves and all Other Citizens and Taxpayers of Moore County v. COUNTY OF MOORE and John M. Currie, W. Lynn Martin, J. M. Pleasants, W. Sidney Taylor and Wiley Purvis, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Moore County, S. C. Riddle, J. Hubert McCaskill and Coy S. Lewis, Sr., constituting the Moore County Board of Elections, and T. Wade Bruton, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina. No. 528. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 6, 1966. *4 Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett, by Henry A. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh, and Pollock *5 & Fullenwider, by R. F. Hoke Pollock, Southern Pines, for plaintiff appellants. Boyette & Brogden and William D. Sabiston, Jr., Carthage, for defendant appellees. LAKE, Justice. The first step in the solution of this matter is to construe the 1965 Act, Chapter 1051 of the Session Laws of 1965. It is well established that an act of the General Assembly must be held void if it is so loosely and obscurely drawn as to be incapable of enforcement. State v. Morrison, 210 N.C. 117, 185 S.E. 674; State v. Partlow, 91 N. C. 550; Drake v. Drake, 15 N.C. 110. In the Drake case, Ruffin, C. J., said: However, as was said in State v. Partlow, supra, "It is plainly the duty of the court to so construe a statute, ambiguous in its meaning, as to give effect to the legislative intent, if this be practicable." It is also well established that this Court will not adjudge an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional unless it is clearly so. Kornegay v. City of Goldsboro, 180 N.C. 441, 105 S.E. 187. Where a statute is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which will render it constitutional and the other will render it unconstitutional, the former will be adopted. City of Randleman v. Hinshaw, 267 N.C. 136, 147 S.E.2d 902; North Star Finance Co. v. Leonard, 263 N.C. 167, 139 S.E.2d 356; Nesbitt v. Gill, 227 N.C. 174,41 S.E.2d 646. If possible, the language of a statute will be interpreted so as to avoid an absurd consequence. Young v. Whitehall Co., 229 N.C. 360, 49 S.E.2d 797; State v. Scales, 172 N.C. 915, 90 S.E. 439. A statute is never to be construed so as to require an impossibility if that result can be avoided by another fair and reasonable construction of its terms. Comrs. of Henderson v. Prudden & Co., 180 N.C. 496, 105 S.E. 7. "A statute or amendment formally passed is presumed, and, if permissible, should be construed so as to have some meaning." Mitchell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 183 N.C. 162, 110 S.E. 859. See also State v. Humphries, 210 N.C. 406, 186 S.E. 473. Where there is conflict between a general statute and a local act, subsequently adopted, the local act prevails within the area where it is intended to apply. Kornegay v. Goldsboro, supra. Applying these principles, we turn to the Act in question, Chapter 1051 of the Session Laws of 1965. It is lengthy and by no means free from ambiguity. Nevertheless, its meaning can be ascertained from its own terms read in the light of existing statutes which must be deemed to have been known to and considered by the General Assembly. Omitting those provisions which, by the terms of the Act, itself, were to take effect only if the voters approved the county-wide school supplement tax, which tax they rejected, passing over those provisions which are not germane to the controversy before us, using our own numbering of its provisions, and quoting the exact language only as indicated, we construe this statute to mean: Article II, Section 29, of the Constitution of North Carolina provides: Article IX, Section 3, of the Constitution provides: *8 The term "school district" in Article II, Section 29, means a "district" provided for in Article IX, Section 3. That is, a "school district" is an area within a county in which one or more public schools must be maintained. It is so defined in G.S. § 115-7. The three areas established by the present statute are not "school districts." The statute declares that these areas are "for the purpose of representation on the Boards of Education." These "Areas" relate to the residence of members of the Board of Education, not to the location of schools. An "administrative unit" is not a "school district" within the meaning of Article II, Section 29. See G.S. § 115-4. Consequently, the merger of two or more administrative units is not a changing of school district lines. Even if it were, this Act does not merge administrative units. It provides machinery by which they may be merged. The merger requires both the assent of the Board of County Commissioners to the holding of an election and the approval of the merger by the majority of the voters participating therein. For this reason, also, the Act does not violate Article II, Section 29, of the Constitution of North Carolina. Peacock v. Scotland County, 262 N.C. 199, 136 S.E.2d 612; Fletcher v. Comrs. of Buncombe, 218 N.C. 1, 9 S.E.2d 606. Having been able to arrive at the above interpretation of the provisions of this Act from the language of the Act, itself, and the provisions of Chapter 76 of the Session Laws of 1943, as amended, we hold that the Act now before us is not void on the ground of vagueness and uncertainty. We find no merit in the contention, advanced in the appellants' brief, that this Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as interpreted in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S. Ct. 801, 9 L. Ed. 2d 821; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506. Under this Act, every member of the Board of Education is to be elected by the voters of the entire county voting at large. Since two of the seven members are, themselves, to be "at large" members, it follows that three of the seven members comprising the entire Board may be residents of the same election district referred to in this statute, if the people of the county, voting at large, see fit to elect them. The appellants contend that this statute provides for dual office holding, forbidden by Article XIV, Section 7, of the Constitution of North Carolina, since it specifies that one member of the new County Board of Education must be appointed from the members of the existing Board of Education of the Moore County Administrative Unit, one from the members of the existing Board of the Southern Pines Administrative Unit and one from the members of the existing Board of the Pinehurst Administrative Unit. This contention is without merit. When such appointee took the oath of office as a member of the newly constituted County Board of Education, his office as a member of the board of the administrative unit was automatically vacated. The provision of the Act in question merely directs the Board of County Commissioners to certain sources from which they are to select appointees to the Moore County Board of Education. The statute does not provide that one selected from such source, and accepting the appointment by taking the oath of office, shall continue to hold his former office. Harris v. Watson, 201 N.C. 661, 161 S.E. 215, 79 A.L.R. 441. The plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the defendants from putting into effect any specific provision of the Act. Their suit is to have the entire Act declared invalid. In addition to the contentions heretofore noted, they assert that it is invalid in its entirety because (1) it contains a provision authorizing condemnation of a school site containing up to 75 acres, whereas G.S. § 115-125 provides for the *9 acquisition by condemnation of a school site not to exceed 30 acres; and (2) it provides that school supplement taxes heretofore authorized in certain parts of the county shall continue in effect. In Constantian v. Anson County, 244 N.C. 221, 93 S.E.2d 163, Bobbitt, J., speaking for the Court, quoted with approval the following statement found in 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 92: In Lowery v. Board of Graded School Trustees, 140 N.C. 33, 52 S.E. 267, Connor, J., speaking for the Court, said: See also: Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Clay County, 213 N.C. 698, 97 S.E. 603; American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Lacy, 188 N.C. 25, 123 S.E. 475, 36 A.L.R. 680; Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 187 N.C. 320, 121 S.E. 534; Comrs. of Bladen County v. Boring, 175 N.C. 105, 95 S.E. 43. Even if it should be determined that the provisions of this Act with reference to the authority to condemn a site of 75 acres and with reference to the continuation of school supplement taxes heretofore in effect are invalid, the remaining provisions of the Act are capable of standing alone and of being carried into effect, and there is nothing in this record or appearing upon the face of the Act, itself, to suggest that the General Assembly would not have adopted such remaining provisions had the two here in question been omitted. It is not necessary for us now to determine, and we do not determine, whether those two provisions of the Act are valid. As to the condemnation of the school site, the plaintiffs do not assert that any property owned by them, or by any member of the class they purport to represent, is about to be condemned. They do not, indeed, assert that any property is to be condemned. The provision of the Act is that the defendants may acquire a site, up to 75 acres, by gift, purchase or condemnation. It is to be noted, furthermore, that the present statute was enacted after the general statute upon which the appellants rely. See Kornegay v. City of Goldsboro, supra. The appellants do not contend that this portion of the Act, in itself, violates any provision of the Constitution of North Carolina. Likewise, it is not necessary for us now to determine, and we do not determine, whether the provision of the Act for the continuation of school supplement taxes heretofore authorized is valid, or what use may be made of the proceeds of such taxes. To declare the entire Act unconstitutional and void, as the plaintiffs would have us do, would leave in effect the very taxes of which they now complain. This Act makes no change in those taxes, and makes no provision as to the use to be made of the proceeds thereof. The appellants also contend that the proceeds of the 1963 bond issue allocated *10 to the Pinehurst and Southern Pines Administrative Units cannot be used by the defendants for the construction of the consolidated high school which the statute here in question directs the new Moore County Board of Education to construct. We are not required upon this record to determine that question. The statute does not purport to deal with it. The judgment from which this appeal is taken does not purport to determine it. It contains no finding of fact with reference to any contemplated use of such proceeds of the 1963 bond issue. The allegation of the complaint that the Board does not have sufficient funds with which to build such high school is denied in the answer. The record does not contain evidence sufficient to support a finding of an intent by the defendants to use for such construction that portion of the proceeds of the bonds heretofore allocated to the Pinehurst and Southern Pines Administrative Units. For a recent and thorough discussion of the use of proceeds of a bond issue for the construction of a school other than those contemplated when the bonds were approved by the voters, see Dilday v. Beaufort County Board of Education, N.C., 148 S.E.2d 513. All assignments of error relating to the rulings of the court below on the admissibility of evidence and to the findings of fact made by the court have been abandoned, these not having been brought forward into the appellants' brief and no argument being made or authorities cited therein in support of them. We have, nevertheless, examined all of them and find no basis therein for disturbing the judgment rendered below. We have also considered each assignment of error brought forward into the briefs, including those not specifically discussed in our opinion, and find them without merit. Affirmed. MOORE, J., not sitting.