Miller v. Duke School District, No. 1

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Miller v. Duke School District, No. 1

113 S.E. 786, 184 N.C. 197, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 50

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 18, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 786 (Miller v. Duke School District, No. 1) 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

Miller v. Duke School District, No. 1, 113 S.E. 786, 184 N.C. 197, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 50 (N.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoee, J.

"We concur in his Honor’s decision that no valid objection has been made to appear to this proposed bond issue, and the special tax to provide for the same.'

As we understand his position, appellant excepts first that no corporate authority has been shown in the school district or its governing body to justify and uphold a measure of this character. In the recent case of Paschal v. Johnson, 183 N. C., 129, the various statutes appertaining to this subject were carefully considered, and it was there held that every school district functioning by proper legislative authority, and having a governing body, whether by trustees, committee, or other, would properly come within the privilege and power of holding an election on a specified bond issue and levying a special tax to provide for same. Speaking to the question, the Court, in the opinion, said: “And in ch. 87, Public Laws, special session, 1920, it is enacted that the board of trustees of any school district in this State is authorized to issue bonds for special school purposes where the measure is properly approved by . the voters at an election held as the law provides. In section 9 of this statute the term ‘school district’ is defined to include every graded school district, high school district, township, or other school district in this State, and the term ‘board of trustees’ shall include the principal administrative or governing body of a school district by whatever name called. And that there may be no uncertainty to arise from the use of these broad and inclusive terms, ch. 224, Laws of 1921, superadds to ‘governing body’ the words ‘or school committee,’ thus extending the provisions of the act to these school districts, which were then in charge of local school agents under the direction of the county board of education.” This ease, in our opinion, is decisive against this objection of appellant.

In regard to the notice of the election, Laws 1920, ch. 87, provided that same should be published in a newspaper published in the district, but this provision was amended by Laws 1921, ch. 122, so as to provide “that if no newspaper is published in the school district, then in some newspaper published in the county in which the school district is located,” and as we understand the record, the statutory requirements as to notice of the election have been strictly complied with.

*202 And as to tbe preliminary notice of a new registration, tbe general statute on tbe subject, C. S., 5926, provides for sucb a notice of 20 days, and in tbe absence of any contrary provision in tbe special law, chapter 87, it would seem tbat tbe general law on tbe subject should prevail. Comrs. v. Malone, 179 N. C., 10. But where, as in this case, it appears tbat a notice of tbe election and of tbe new registration were published twice in a newspaper of general circulation in tbe district, and a written notice was also posted at tbe courthouse door in tbe county, and at three public places in tbe district for two weeks prior- to tbe opening of tbe registration books, and tbat these books were kept open at tbe proper place from 15 May till 3 June prior to tbe election on 15 June, 1922, and there is no claim or suggestion tbat there was not a full registration of tbe voters, or tbat any voter in tbe district was denied opportunity to-register and to cast bis ballot. And tbat out of a total qualified and registered vote in tbe district of 264, there were 236 votes for tbe bonds, with two opposed, and 235 for special tax, with only two opposed, our decisions fully justify us in bolding tbat tbe technical failure to give this preliminary notice of registration for tbe full twenty days should not be allowed to affect tbe result or defeat what is clearly a full and fair expression of tbe voters’ will. On authority, this objection also must be overruled. Hammond v. McRae, 182 N. C., 747-752; Comrs. v. Malone, 179 N. C., 10; Hill v. Skinner, 169 N. C., 411.

We find no error in tbe record, and tbe judgment in denial of plaintiff’s application and upholding tbe validity of the bonds and special tax is

Affirmed.

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

Hoee, J.

"We concur in his Honor’s decision that no valid objection has been made to appear to this proposed bond issue, and the special tax to provide for the same.'

As we understand his position, appellant excepts first that no corporate authority has been shown in the school district or its governing body to justify and uphold a measure of this character. In the recent case of Paschal v. Johnson, 183 N. C., 129, the various statutes appertaining to this subject were carefully considered, and it was there held that every school district functioning by proper legislative authority, and having a governing body, whether by trustees, committee, or other, would properly come within the privilege and power of holding an election on a specified bond issue and levying a special tax to provide for same. Speaking to the question, the Court, in the opinion, said: “And in ch. 87, Public Laws, special session, 1920, it is enacted that the board of trustees of any school district in this State is authorized to issue bonds for special school purposes where the measure is properly approved by . the voters at an election held as the law provides. In section 9 of this statute the term ‘school district’ is defined to include every graded school district, high school district, township, or other school district in this State, and the term ‘board of trustees’ shall include the principal administrative or governing body of a school district by whatever name called. And that there may be no uncertainty to arise from the use of these broad and inclusive terms, ch. 224, Laws of 1921, superadds to ‘governing body’ the words ‘or school committee,’ thus extending the provisions of the act to these school districts, which were then in charge of local school agents under the direction of the county board of education.” This ease, in our opinion, is decisive against this objection of appellant.

In regard to the notice of the election, Laws 1920, ch. 87, provided that same should be published in a newspaper published in the district, but this provision was amended by Laws 1921, ch. 122, so as to provide “that if no newspaper is published in the school district, then in some newspaper published in the county in which the school district is located,” and as we understand the record, the statutory requirements as to notice of the election have been strictly complied with.

*202 And as to tbe preliminary notice of a new registration, tbe general statute on tbe subject, C. S., 5926, provides for sucb a notice of 20 days, and in tbe absence of any contrary provision in tbe special law, chapter 87, it would seem tbat tbe general law on tbe subject should prevail. Comrs. v. Malone, 179 N. C., 10. But where, as in this case, it appears tbat a notice of tbe election and of tbe new registration were published twice in a newspaper of general circulation in tbe district, and a written notice was also posted at tbe courthouse door in tbe county, and at three public places in tbe district for two weeks prior- to tbe opening of tbe registration books, and tbat these books were kept open at tbe proper place from 15 May till 3 June prior to tbe election on 15 June, 1922, and there is no claim or suggestion tbat there was not a full registration of tbe voters, or tbat any voter in tbe district was denied opportunity to-register and to cast bis ballot. And tbat out of a total qualified and registered vote in tbe district of 264, there were 236 votes for tbe bonds, with two opposed, and 235 for special tax, with only two opposed, our decisions fully justify us in bolding tbat tbe technical failure to give this preliminary notice of registration for tbe full twenty days should not be allowed to affect tbe result or defeat what is clearly a full and fair expression of tbe voters’ will. On authority, this objection also must be overruled. Hammond v. McRae, 182 N. C., 747-752; Comrs. v. Malone, 179 N. C., 10; Hill v. Skinner, 169 N. C., 411.

We find no error in tbe record, and tbe judgment in denial of plaintiff’s application and upholding tbe validity of the bonds and special tax is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 786, 184 N.C. 197, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-duke-school-district-no-1-nc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack