Elliott v. State Board of Equalization

166 S.E. 918, 203 N.C. 749, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 92
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 21, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 918 (Elliott v. State Board of Equalization) 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
Elliott v. State Board of Equalization, 166 S.E. 918, 203 N.C. 749, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 92 (N.C. 1932).

Opinion

Adams, J.

Upon the facts as found by the court the plaintiffs requested the defendants to provide funds and teachers for supporting and conducting a public school in each of the three nontax districts. The defendants declined this request, assigned additional teachers to Chowan High School, and arranged for the transportation thereto of eligible children residing in the other districts. As a consequence, no school is maintained within the boundaries of River Yiew, Ryland, or Ward’s District.

*752 Tbe plaintiffs contest the legal right of the defendants to make tbis order, and the defendants rest their authority upon the following statute: “Tbe State Board of Equalization may refuse to include in the State budget all or a part of the teachers in any school or schools which may be operated in close proximity to another school of the same type and class, when in the opinion of said board such school could be operated more economically and efficiently if consolidated in whole or in part; but in all such cases said board shall designate the school or schools from which teachers are disallowed.” Public Laws 1931, ch. 430, sec. 6. Whether this statute justifies the order made by the State Board of Equalization is the question for decision. It will be observed that the section does not contain the word “district,” and that it makes no distinction between school districts and schools. It must, therefore, be considered in connection with the facts set out in the judgment of the court.

The Constitution, Article IX, has the following provisions:

Sec. 2. The General Assembly, at its first session under this Constitution, 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 six and twenty-one years.

Sec. 3. Each county of the State shall be divided into a convenient number of districts, in which one or more public schools shall be maintained at least six months in every year; and if the commissioners of any county shall fail to comply with the aforesaid requirements of this section, they shall be liable to indictment.

These sections have been a part of the Constitution since its adoption in 1868 — the second amended in 1875 by providing separate public schools for the white and colored races, and the third afterwards amended by providing a school term of six instead of four months pursuant to ratification by the people of the proposed change. Public Laws 1917, ch. 192; Public Laws 1919, ch. 102.

It has been held that these constitutional provisions were intended to establish a system of public education adequate to the needs of the people, affording school facilities to all the children of the State, and that the term “uniform” as used in the second section does not relate to schools so as to require that all schools shall be of the same grade, regardless of the age or attainment of the pupils, but that the term qualifies the word “system,” the provision contemplating the establishment of schools of like kind and available generally to the school population. Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners, 174 N. C., 469. It has been held, also, that the legislative grant of power to make a division of school districts refers to the establishment or consolidation *753 of districts as territorial or geographical units and not to the classification or segregation of pupils apart from the land on wbicb they live. Woosley v. Comrs., 182 N. C., 429. These sections are mandatory, Julian v. Ward, 198 N. C., 480; Board of Education v. Board of Comrs., supra, and for disregard of the mandate in section three the county commissioners are liable to indictment.

Each county shall have a convenient number of districts in which one or more public schools shall he maintained for at least six months in every year. The language is plain, and it is asserted that there is no room for doubt. We are advertent to the doctrine that a constitution should generally be given, not essentially a literal, narrow, or technical interpretation, but one based upon broad and liberal principles designed to ascertain the purpose and scope of its provisions. If the meaning is clearly expressed it should he adopted; if doubtful, the intention must be sought, McLeod v. Comrs., 148 N. C., 77, and the intention to be ascertained is the intention of those by whom the constitution was adopted. Collie, v. Comrs., 145 N. C., 170. • In the attainment of this end we may resort to the natural significance of the words employed and if they embody a definite meaning and involve no absurdity or contradiction we are at liberty to say that the meaning apparent on the face of the instrument is the one intended to be conveyed. Black on Interpretation of Laws, 17 et seq. Likewise, we may have recourse to former decisions, among which are several dealing with the subject under consideration.

Among the earlier decisions are some which were made upon the implied assumption that a school must be maintained in each district; and in Collie v. Comrs., supra, it was definitely said: “Article IX of the Constitution, after declaring that religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged, commands in section 3 thereof, that one or more public schools shall be maintained at least four months (now six) in every year in each school district in each county of the State.” This interpretation was approved in Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners, 178 N. C., 305, and in Lacy v. Bank, 183 N. C., 373, the Court again observed: “A proper consideration of the article (Constitution, Art. IX) will clearly disclose that its provisions are mandatory, imposing on the Legislature the duty of providing ‘by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of public education, free of charge, to all the children of the State from six to twenty-one years,’ that the school term in the various districts shall continue for at least six months in each and every year, and that the counties of the State are recognized and *754 designated as the governmental agencies through which the Legislature may act in the performance of this duty and in making its measures effective. In various decisions of the Court the importance and imperative nature of these constitutional provisions have been upheld and emphasized.” These expositions are positive and unequivocal, and as was said in Collie's case, “When 'the people have clearly ordained what shall be done, we, as judges, have nothing to do but to obey and to execute their will.”

The third section of Article IX as heretofore construed contemplated at the time of its adoption the maintenance for the required period of a public school in each district. As the means of travel were limited, it was necessary to bring the schools to the pupils instead of transporting the pupils to the schools. Under this system many of the schools were wholly inadequate.

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

Related

State v. Tirado
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2025
McKinney v. Goins
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2025
Cmty. Success Initiative v. Moore
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2023
Harper v. Hall
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2022
Silver v. Halifax Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners
821 S.E.2d 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2018)
N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State
814 S.E.2d 54 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2018)
State ex rel. McCrory v. Berger
781 S.E.2d 248 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2016)
Baxter v. DANNY NICHOLSON, INC.
690 S.E.2d 265 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2010)
Coley v. State
631 S.E.2d 121 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)
Shavitz v. City of High Point
630 S.E.2d 4 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
North Carolina School Boards Ass'n v. Moore
614 S.E.2d 504 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2005)
Stephenson v. Bartlett
562 S.E.2d 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2002)
Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp.
493 S.E.2d 310 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Kiser v. Kiser
385 S.E.2d 487 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1989)
State Ex Rel. Martin v. Preston
385 S.E.2d 473 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1989)
State Ex Rel. Martin v. Melott
359 S.E.2d 783 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Stam v. State
267 S.E.2d 335 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Constantian v. Anson County
93 S.E.2d 163 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Kreeger v. Drummond
68 S.E.2d 800 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Purser v. . Ledbetter
40 S.E.2d 702 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 S.E. 918, 203 N.C. 749, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-state-board-of-equalization-nc-1932.