Banks v. City of Raleigh
This text of 16 S.E.2d 413 (Banks v. City of Raleigh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The question for decision is whether ch. 463, Public-Local Laws 1941, providing for an extension of the corporate limits of the city of Ealeigh, is valid in whole or in part.
It is the opinion of a majority of the Court that with the exception of the proviso in the 4th section which offends against the constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation, Art. V, section 3, Anderson v. Asheville, 194 N. C., 117, 138 S. E., 715, the Act in question is valid, and that the proviso is divisible and separable from the remainder of the statute. R. R. v. Reid, 187 N. C., 320, 121 S. E., 534; Comrs. v. Boring, 175 N. C., 105, 95 S. E., 43. The Act then stands with the proviso deleted as was decided in the court below.
The view of the minority is, that the presumption of inseparability should prevail and the entire Act declared void. Minton v. Early, 183 N. C., 199, 111 S. E., 347; Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N. C., 451, 88 S. E., 640; Electric Bond & Share v. Security Exchange, 303 U. S., 419.
The pertinent principles of construction are well settled. The divergence of opinion arises over a different conception of the significance to be ascribed to the unconstitutional provision in section 4 of the Act and the effect of its elision. The majority voting in favor of affirmance, the judgment will be upheld.
On plaintiff’s appeal, Affirmed.
On defendants’ appeal, Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 S.E.2d 413, 220 N.C. 35, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-city-of-raleigh-nc-1941.