State v. . Williams

182 S.E. 711, 209 N.C. 57, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 27
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 11, 1935·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

That chapter 286, Public-Local Laws 1925, entitled, “An act to- establish township recorder’s courts with criminal jurisdiction in Cabarrus County,” runs counter to Art. II, sec. 29, of the Constitution, prohibiting the establishment of courts inferior to the Superior Court, by any local, private, or special act or resolution, is the conclusion of the whole matter. Provision Co. v. Daves, 190 N. C., 7, 128 S. E., 593; In re Harris, 183 N. C., 633, 112 S. E., 425.

This result has been reached after observing the following rules:

1. In considering the constitutionality of a statute, every presumption is to be indulged in favor of its validity. S. v. Revis, 193 N. C., 192, 136 S. E., 346; Sutton v. Phillips, 116 N. C., 502, 21 S. E., 968; S. v. Manuel, 20 N. C., 144.

2. If the act of assembly be fairly susceptible of two interpretations, one constitutional and the other not, in keeping with the rule in favorem vitae, the former will be adopted and the latter rejected. S. v. Casey, 201 N. C., 620, 161 S. E., 81; S. v. Yarboro, 194 N. C., 498, 140 S. E., 216; S. v. Revis, supra; Hopkins Fed. S. & L. Asso. v. Cleary, 296 U. S., 80, Law Ed., 209.

3. The courts will not declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional, even when clearly so, except in a case properly calling for the determination of its validity. Newman v. Comrs. of Vance, 208 N. C., 675; Wood v. Braswell, 192 N. C., 588, 135 S. E., 529; S. v. Corpeninq, 191 N. C., 751, 133 S. E., 14; Person v. Doughton, 186 N. C., 723, 120 S. E., 481.

It follows, therefore, that the warrant should have been quashed.

It is provided by the section of the Constitution above mentioned that the “General Assembly shall not pass any local, private, or special act or resolution relating to the establishment of courts inferior to the Superior Court.” Chapter 286, Public-Local Laws 1925, is a local act relat *59 ing to the establishment of courts, inferior to the Superior Court, to wit, township recorder’s courts, and is applicable only to Cabarrus County. An act of the General Assembly in conflict with the Constitution is void. Grimes v. Holmes, 207 N. C., 293, 176 S. E., 746; R. R. v. Cherokee Co., 177 N. C., 86, 97 S. E., 758; Atkins v. Hospital, 261 U. S., 525. The trial in the recorder’s court was coram non judice, and the warrant was not issued by a proper judicial officer.

Reversed.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

State v. . Williams, 182 S.E. 711, 209 N.C. 57, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 27 (N.C. 1935).

182 S.E. 711 (State v. . Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re the Appeal of the University of North Carolina
268 S.E.2d 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
McIntyre v. Clarkson
119 S.E.2d 888 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
State v. Furmage
109 S.E.2d 563 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
85 S.E.2d 125 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Nesbitt v. . Gill, Comr. of Revenue
41 S.E.2d 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
State v. . Lueders
200 S.E. 22 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Brigman v. Baley
195 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Hood Ex Rel. United Bank & Trust Co. v. Richardson Realty, Inc.
191 S.E. 410 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
State v. . Smith
189 S.E. 509 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)