Court Opinion

ID: 9811665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:00.705526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:01.710572
License: Public Domain

BakNhtll, J.,
dissenting: I am compelled to dissent to the majority opinion for the reasons set forth in my dissent filed in Fletcher v. Comrs. of Buncombe, ante, 1, and for a further reason not therein set out, which reason is equally applicable to the Fletcher case, supra.
In prohibiting the enactment of local laws creating school districts or changing or altering the lines thereof, Art. II, sec. 29, of the Constitution provides: “Nor shall the General Assembly enact any such local, private or special act by the partial repeal of a general law.” The local law under which defendants seek to create a school district was, in this case, enacted after the General School Machinery Act of 1939. It constitutes a partial repeal of at least two of the provisions of the general law, to wit: (1) The provision that no taxes shall be levied except as *15provided in the general law, and (2) Tbe provision that the capital outlay funds shall be provided by a county-wide levy.
I do not consider Brown v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 598, authoritative. At the time that decision was rendered the State had not assumed control of the State Highways or the maintenance of county roads. The act under consideration in that case was not in conflict with any State policy and there is no provision in the Constitution requiring the State to construct and maintain public roads similar to the requirement in respect to schools, and it related exclusively to financing roads.
DeviN and "WiNbobNE, JJ., concur in this opinion. .