Feezor v. Siceloff
| Decision Date | 01 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 669,669 |
| Citation | 232 N.C. 563,61 S.E.2d 714 |
| Parties | FEEZOR et al. v. SICELOFF et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
P. V. Critcher, Lexington, for plaintiffs.
S. A. DeLapp, Lexington, for defendants.
The defendants challenge the correctness of the ruling below solely on the ground that the Board of Commissioners of Davidson County is without legal authority to grant the request of the plaintiffs. In our opinion the challenge cannot be sustained.
A county board of education has the authority 'to consolidate schools located in the same district, and, with the approval of the state board of education, to consolidate school districts, over which the board has full control, whenever and wherever in its judgment the consolidation will better serve the educational interests of the county or any part of it'. G.S. § 115-99. And whether a change should be made in the location of a school, as well as the selection of a site for a new one, is vested in the sound discretion of the school authorities, and their action cannot be restrained by the courts unless in violation of some provision of law, or the authorities have been influenced by improper motives, or there has been a manifest abuse of discretion on their part. G.S. § 115-84 and 85; Atkins v. McAden 229 N.C. 752, 51 S.E.2d 484; Board of Education v. Pegram, 197 N.C. 33, 147 S.E. 622; Board of Education v. Foreest, 190 N.C. 753, 130 S.E. 621; School Commissioners v. Board of Aldermen, 158 N.C. 191, 73 S.E. 905; Venable v. School Committee, 149 N.C. 120, 62 S.E. 902.
The question before us does not involve any change of purpose for which the school bonds were issued, but only a change in the manner or method of accomplishing that purpose. Nor are we confronted with the abandonment of projects in the districts of Midway, Welcome and Arcadia, and the transfer of the funds provided therefor to improve or construct school buildings in other districts, as we were in the case of Atkins v. McAden, supra. Neither is there a contemplated diversion of the proceeds of a bond issue, approved by a vote of the people, to construct a particular school, as was the case in Waldrop v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 370, 53 S.E.2d 263.
It appears from the facts found herein, to which there is no exception, that the state and local school authorities, at the request of the citizens and taxpayers of the districts involved, investigated the situation as it now exists in these districts, with particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Painter v. Wake County Bd. of Ed.
...of Education, 282 N.C. 208, 192 S.E.2d 463 (1972); Dilday v. Board of Education, 267 N.C. 438, 148 S.E.2d 513 (1966); Feezor v. Siceloff, 232 N.C. 563, 61 S.E.2d 714 (1950); Board 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......
-
Gates School Dist. Committee v. Board of Educ. of Gates County, 17
...of law. Kreeger v. Drummond, 235 N.C. 8, 68 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, ......
-
Parker v. Anson County
...which are either directly or indirectly at issue on this appeal. Waldrop v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 370, 53 S.E.2d 263; Feezor v. Siceloff, 232 N.C. 563, 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.......
-
Constantian v. Anson County, 463
...Court in Mauldin v. McAden, 234 N.C. 501, 67 S.E.2d 647, and Gore v. Columbus County, 232 N.C. 636, 61 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, deci......