Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners

93 S.E. 1001, 174 N.C. 469, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 123
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 7, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 1001 (Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners) 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.

Bluebook
Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners, 93 S.E. 1001, 174 N.C. 469, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 123 (N.C. 1917).

Opinions

The action was one in the nature of mandamus to compel defendants to lay a special tax of 10 cents on the $100 valuation as necessary to maintain the public schools of said county for a period of four months, defendants contending that a tax of 5 cents levied by them was sufficient for the purpose.

There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs excepted and appealed. The Board of Education of Granville County, having made their estimate of the amount of special tax required to maintain the public schools of Granville County for a period of four months at 10 cents on the $100 valuation of property, presented *Page 507 same to the board of commissioners, pursuant to chapter 33, section 8, Laws 1913, and the latter board, being of opinion that 5 cents on the $100 valuation was sufficient, proposed to levy this amount, whereupon the plaintiff board, as required by the said act, instituted the present action to have the amount necessary fixed and determined by the Superior Court judge presiding in the district. The cause coming on to be heard, as stated, before Judge G. W. Connor, holding the courts of the district, his Honor made a full and careful finding of the facts appertaining to the question, and approved the act of defendant board fixing the tax levy at 5 cents. In arriving at this conclusion his Honor eliminated an item of $1,250 demanded for the maintenance of four high schools in said county, located at Creedmore, Stem, Knap of Reeds, and Stovall, being of opinion that these schools were no part of the public-school system, and also the sum of $1,250 estimated and claimed as an amount appertaining especially to the high school in the town of Oxford, the county-seat; the findings of his Honor in reference to the four high schools first mentioned, and his conclusions thereon, being stated in the judgment, as follows: "This estimate further includes the sum of $1,250 for appropriations for high schools at Creedmore, Stem, Knap of Reeds, and Stovall. These high schools are not part of the general and uniform system of public schools required by the Constitution to be maintained in each school district in the State for a period of four months in each year, but have been established and are maintained under the provisions of the school law as State high schools, supported by funds raised by appropriations by the State and county, and funds raised by special taxes levied in the districts in which they are located, and the said sum of $1,250 should not be included in the amount required to maintain the public schools for four months, as required by the Constitution."

From this order the plaintiff board has appealed, assigning for error, chiefly, that his Honor, in determining the sum required, disallowed the amount claimed for the four schools established pursuant to the high-school law (chapter 820, Public Laws 1907) and the subsequent statutes amendatory thereof.

Considering the record in reference to the exceptions noted, Article IX, of our Constitution, after declaring in section 1 that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, and that schools and (472) the means of education should be forever encouraged, in section 2 directs that the General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of public schools, wherein tuition shall be free of charge to all the children of the State, between the ages of 6 and 21 years; in section 3, that each *Page 508 county shall be divided into a convenient number of school districts, in which one or more public schools shall be maintained at least four months in every year, and if the commissioners of any county shall fail to comply with the aforesaid requirements of said section they shall be liable to indictment.

After making appropriation of certain specified funds to educational purposes, provision is made for the maintenance and management of the State University, and a State Board of Education is then created, composed of the Governor and chief executive officers of the State, of which the Governor shall be chairman and the Superintendent of Education shall be secretary, and has conferred upon it extensive powers to "legislate and make all needful rules and regulations in relation to the free schools and the educational funds of the State, subject to the supervision and control of the General Assembly, by act or resolutions duly passed."

In Collie v. Commissioners, 145 N.C. 170, we have held that these requirements of the Constitution as to our public-school system are imperative, and that the restrictions established by Article V as to the amount of tax levies for ordinary State and county purposes do not apply to taxation required to maintain these four-months public schools. We find nothing in this article of our Constitution, or elsewhere, which in terms restricts the public schools of the State to the elementary grades, or which establishes any fixed and universal standard as to form, equipment, or curriculum. On the contrary, in view of the prominent placing of the subject in our organic law, the large powers of regulation and control conferred upon our State board, extending at times even to legislation on the subject, the inclusive nature of the terms employed, "to all the children of the State, between the ages of 6 and 21 years of age," together with the steadfast adherence to this patriotic, beneficent purpose, throughout our entire history, it is manifest that these constitutional provisions were intended to establish a system of public education adequate to the needs of a great and progressive people, affording school facilities of recognized and ever-increasing merit to all the children of the State, and to the full extent that our means could afford and intelligent direction accomplish. Under such interpretation, the legislation of 1907 and subsequent amendatory acts, by which these four high schools and others of like kind are established and made a part of our public-school system, is fully justified, placed as (473) they are under the regulation and control of the public-school authorities and extending to all portions of the State which may come under its provisions.

The general principle is fully recognized with us in Greensboro v.Hodgin, 106 N.C. 182, and is well supported by authoritative *Page 509 cases in other jurisdictions. Evers v. Hudson, 36 Mont. 135; Russel v. HighSchool Board, 97 Ill. 327; Cook v. Board of Directors, 266 Ill. 164;Dickinson v. Dickinson (Ark.), 178 S.W. 930; Roach v. School Board of St.Louis, 77 Mo. 484; Koester v. Board of Commissioners, 44 Kan. 141.

Nor is the position weakened or in any way affected by reason of the descriptive words of our Constitution, providing that our system of public schools shall be general and uniform.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hart v. State
774 S.E.2d 281 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)
Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
681 S.E.2d 278 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2009)
Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake County Board of Education
675 S.E.2d 345 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2009)
Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake County Board of Education
660 S.E.2d 217 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
Leandro v. State
488 S.E.2d 249 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)
Leandro v. State
468 S.E.2d 543 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Guilford County Board of Education v. Guilford County Board of Elections
430 S.E.2d 681 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Morgan v. Polk County Board of Education
328 S.E.2d 320 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Kiddie Korner Day Schools, Inc. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
285 S.E.2d 110 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Fletcher v. Collins
218 N.C. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Elliott v. State Board of Equalization
166 S.E. 918 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Owens v. . Wake County
141 S.E. 546 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Tate v. . Board of Education
135 S.E. 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Lacy v. . Bank
111 S.E. 612 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Lacy v. Fidelity Bank of Durham
183 N.C. 373 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners
109 S.E. 630 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.E. 1001, 174 N.C. 469, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-v-board-of-county-commissioners-nc-1917.