Atkins v. Mcaden
| Decision Date | 04 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 528.,528. |
| Citation | 229 N.C. 752,51 S.E.2d. 484 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ATKINS et al. v. McADEN et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; George B. Patton, Special Judge.
Action under the Declaratory Judgment Act by J. Murray Atkins and others, School Commissioners of the City of Char-lotte, against S. Y. McAden and others, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Mecklenburg County and another, to determine whether the Board had legal right to allocate or re-allocate the proceeds from sale of school bonds. From the judgment, defendants appeal.
Judgment modified and as modified affirmed.
This action is brought under the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, to determine whether or not the Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County has the legal right to allocate or re-allocate the proceeds from the sale of school bonds for the erection, repair or equipment of any school buildings except those referred to in the bond order adopted by the County Commissioners and in accordance with the estimates contained therein.
On February 5, 1946, the Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County met in special session to consider a request from the School Commissioners of the City of Charlotte to provide certain school improvements aggregating $3,980, 000. The Board decided to consider the advisibility of issuing。 school bonds in the sum of $5,972, 000, " of which $3,980, 000 would be allocated to the City of Charlotte School Administrative Unit and the sum of $1,992, 000 to be used and expended in the Mecklenburg County School Administrative Unit.
Pursuant to the requests of the School Commissioners of the City of Charlotte and the County Board of Education of Mecklenburg County, the Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County found the following facts: "Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of the County of Mecklenburg has carefully examined the facts and has determined, and hereby finds as a fact, that it has become the duty of said Board of Commissioners, acting as an administrative agent of the State in providing a State system of public schools, to order the issuance of a sufficient amount of County bonds to provide the school improvements mentioned in said resolutions, in order to maintain the constitutional six. months' school term in Mecklenburg County" * * * Whereupon the following resolution was adopted: 1 hat, pursuant to the County Finance Act, as amended [G.S. § 153-69 et seq.], bonds of Mecklenburg County be issued in an amount not exceeding $5,972, 000 for the purpose of providing funds for erecting, remodeling and enlarging school buildings, including the acquisition of necessary land and equipment, in order to maintain the constitutional six months' school term in Mecklenburg County, the estimated costs of which are as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Charlotte Administrative Unit for remodeling or enlarging 19 |$1,497, |
|School Buildings (naming them) |500.00 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|New school buildings (naming them) among them being Chantilly and |2, 022, |
|Park Road Elementary Schools |500.00 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|2 New Buildings to replace old sections of First Ward and |460, |
|Elizabeth School and equipment |000.00 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The estimates for the Mecklenburg County Administrative Unit not being pertinent to this appeal, they are omitted.)
The order authorizing the issuance of these bonds was duly adopted. The approval of the bond issue by the voters of Mecklenburg County was obtained in a special election, April 23, 1946, and the notice of election contained the same descriptive information as to building projects as that which appeared in the bond order.
On July 19, 1948, the School Commissioners of the City of Charlotte, informed the Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County that while it was originally contemplated to use $230,000 of this bond issue to demolish the present old First Ward School Building, used for white children, and to erect in lieu thereof a new building, in view of the exodus of white families from the area, which reduced the enrollment in the First Ward School by 199 during the 1947-18 School year under the 1945^16 enrollment; the encroachment of business and industry within the territory and the increase of the colored population in the area, it has been determined that the present building, with the expenditure of $65,000 could be made adequate to meet the requirements of the district; and that to expend more of these funds on the First Ward School Building would be "improvident and against their better judg-ment". Whereupon, they requested the Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County to allocate from the so-called First Ward School funds $100,000 to be used for further improving Chantilly and Park Road Elementary Schools and that the balance of the said funds, after renovating and repairing the First Ward School, be made available for constructing, repairing and equipping other school buildings in the City of Charlotte.
The Board of Commissioners, being of the opinion that it had no legal right or authority to re-allocate these funds, or to permit their use for any other purposes than those enumerated in the bond order, refused to accede to the request of the plaintiffs.
This action was instituted and came on to be heard before his Honor, without a jury, and after argument of counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants, the trial Judge, in addition to finding facts as set out above, also found as a fact that the plaintiffs in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Painter v. Wake County Bd. of Ed.
...of Education v. Lewis, 231 N.C. 661, 58 S.E.2d 725 (1950); Waldrop v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 370, 53 S.E.2d 263 (1949); Atkins v. McAden, 229 N.C. 752, 51 S.E.2d 484 (1949); Board of Education v. Pegram, 197 N.C. 33, 147 S.E. 622 (1929); Board of Education v. Forrest, 190 N.C. 753, 130 S.E. 621 (......
-
Gates School Dist. Committee v. Board of Educ. of Gates County, 17
...S.E. 2d 800; Kistler v. Board of Education, 233 N.C. 400, 64 S.E.2d 403; Feezor v. Siceloff, 232 N.C. 563, 61 S.E.2d 714; Atkins v. McAden, 229 N.C. 752, 51 S.E.2d 484; School Committee of Seventy-First Consol. School Dist. v. Board of Education, 186 N.C. 643, 120 S.E. 202; Davenport v. Boa......
-
Parker v. Anson County
...61 S.E.2d 714; Gore v. Columbus County, 232 N.C. 636, 61 S.E. 2d 890; Mauldin v. McAden, 234 N.C. 501, 67 S.E.2d 647; Atkins v. McAden, 229 N.C. 752, 51 S.E.2d 484; Johnson v. Marrow, 228 N.C. 58, 44 S.E.2d 468; Wayne County Board of Education v. Lewis, 231 N.C. 661, 58 S.E.2d 725; Kreeger ......
-
Constantian v. Anson County, 463
...S.E.2d 890, and Feezor v. Siceloff, 232 N.C. 563, 61 S.E.2d 714, and Waldrop v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 370, 53 S.E.2d 263, and Atkins v. McAden, 229 N.C. 752, 51 S.E.2d 484. In those cases, decision turned on whether subsequent findings in the light of changing educational needs warranted the tra......