Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Hooker v. Town of Greenville.

Hooker v. Town of Greenville.

42 S.E. 141, 130 N.C. 472, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 85
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 17, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 141 (Hooker v. Town of Greenville.) 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
Hooker v. Town of Greenville., 42 S.E. 141, 130 N.C. 472, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 85 (N.C. 1902).

Opinion

Furches, C. J.

Tbe defendant, tbe town of Greenville, believing it was authorized by Chapter 121 of tbe Private Laws of 1901, to raise, by tbe issue and sale of $75,000 par value of coupon bonds, money for tbe purposes stated in said act, proceeded to bold an election as provided in^said chapter; and after said election, at which it was found and declared *473 that a majority of tbe qualified voters of said town had voted for the issue of said bonds, the defendant proceeded to advertise and was offering said bonds for sale. And it alleges in its answer that it had agreed upon a sale of the same, and had levied a tax for the purpose of paying the accruing interest thereon; and the defendant being of the opinion that Chapter 497, of the Public Laws of 1901, had established a graded school within the corporate limits of the town of Greenville, had levied a tax of ten cents on the $100 worth of property, and thirty cents on the taxable polls for the support of said graded school.

But the plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of the town of Greenville, believed that said act providing for the issue of bonds was void for irregularity in its submission'to the voters for their approval, and alleged that the act for the purpose of establishing the graded school was void for the reason that it discriminated in the distribution of the money collected by taxation between the white and colored races. And he further contends that they are both invalid for' the reason that they were not passed by recording the yeas and nays on- the second and third readings, as the Constitution requires such laws for raising money and taxing the people and their property should be, and are void on that account.

This action is brought to restrain and perpetually enjoin the defendant from issuing and selling said bonds, and from levying any tax for the payment thereof, or the interest thereon; and to enjoin the defendant from paying the $5,000 provided therein to the trustees of the graded school, and from levying and collecting any tax for the support and maintenance of said graded school. TJpon a hearing before Winston, JT., the injunction was refused and the plaintiff appealed.

There were many affidavits and orders offered on the hearing, as to the alleged irregularities in the manner of the registration and holding the election, and as to the manner in *474 which the defendant performed its duty, and as to the best place to get a water supply. But we will not enter upon a discussion of these, further than to' say that where the defendant has the power to act, the Courts will not interfere unless fraud or bad faith is alleged and shown, but will leave these matters to be corrected by the people at the next election, if there is cause of complaint.

But the next ground alleged is a matter of which we must take notice, to-wit, that the act establishing the graded school discriminates in its provisions against one race and in favor of the other. If this is so, it is in violation of Article IX, Section 2, of the Constitution, which provides as follows: “And the children of the white race and the children of the colored race shall be taught in separate public schools;' but there shall be no discrimination in favor of or to the prejudice of either race.” That is, one white child of the school age shall have the same amount of money per capita as a colored child, and no more; and the colored child shall have the same amount per capita as any white child, and no more; that both races shall have equal opportunities for an education, so- far as the public money is concerned: If this bill discriminates against either race to the prejudice of the other race, it is unconstitutional. Riggsbee v. Durham, 94 N. C., 800; Puitt v. Commissioners, 94 N. C., 709. And the law will not allow that to be done by indirection that can not be done directly. The act establishing this graded school (Chapter 479, Public Laws 1901) has fifty calls, that is, fifty corners and fifty lines, in its boundary, which seem to us to be remarkable, and we were not able to- understand what are the boundaries from the calls in the act. Therefore, for the purpose of explaining the calls in the act, we had a map of the town of Greenville-, including, the school district, furnished us for the purpose of enabling us to understand the calls in the act. Blue v. Ritter, 118 N. C., 580; Foster v. Hackett, 112 N. C., 546. The boundaries are as follows:

*0

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

Related

Howard v. . Board of Education
127 S.E. 704 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Cameron v. . Highway Com.
123 S.E. 465 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Cameron v. State Highway Commission
188 N.C. 84 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Smith v. School Trustees.
53 S.E. 524 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Lowery v. School Trustees.
52 S.E. 267 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Debnam v. Chitty.
43 S.E. 3 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 S.E. 141, 130 N.C. 472, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooker-v-town-of-greenville-nc-1902.