Court Opinion

ID: 9811603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:25:25.05838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:29.373982
License: Public Domain

*638Clark, C. J.,
concurring in result: It is well settled that a statute may be constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. It is not necessary to cite authorities for this.
The amendment to the Constitution adopted in 1916, now Article II, section 29, prohibits local legislation on many subjects, among them “the establishment of courts inferior to the Superior Court,” and requires that all legislation on the subjects named in that section shall be enacted by general laws. Laws 1919, ch. 271, entitled “An act to establish a uniform system of recorders’ courts for municipalities and counties in the State,” is in strict accordance with the amendment, and constitutional. It is a carefully prepared system, and by its terms applies -to the whole State. It gives the same power to establish these courts in all of the 100 counties of the State.
But section 64 of said act, now C. S., 1608, which attempted to withdraw 44 counties from the provisions of the general act, is in violation of Article II, section 29, and unconstitutional and void.
The act here in question, Laws-1921, ch. 110, simply withdrew Iredell, Granville, and Cherokee from being among the 44 counties attempted to be excepted from the valid general act, Laws 1919, ch. 277, establishing a uniform system of recorders’ courts.
As the provision excepting the 44 counties was unconstitutional, this act withdrawing these counties from the excepted class was a work of supererogation and unnecessary, but constitutional, and the recorders court in Iredell is valid.
I do not understand that section 29, Article II, of the Constitution invalidates any local legislation, on any subject, which had been enacted prior to the adoption of the amendment.