Hill v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Gates County, (No. 10.)
| Decision Date | 16 September 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10.) |
| Citation | 129 S.E. 154 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HILL et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF GATES COUNTY. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Gates County; Sinclair, Judge.
Action by J. R. Hill and others against the Board of Commissioners of Gates County. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the action, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Civil action, heard upon demurrer and facts agreed, to enjoin the defendant, Board of Commissioners of Gates county, from proceeding, under chapter 46, § 1, Public Local Laws, Extra Session 1924, "to take over the highway leading from Mitchell's fork via Gatesville, Buckland, and Gates to the Virginia state line near Somerton, Virginia, and to relieve the townships through which the highway traverses from the burden of building, repairing, and maintaining the same, and to also take over all of the bridges of the various townships, the said bridges to be built and maintained at the expense of the county." Authority is also given in said act to levy a special tax on all the property in the county, not to exceed 15 cents on the $100 valuation, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the statute. From a judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action, the plaintiffs appeal.
McMullan & LeRoy, of Elizabeth City, for appellants.
T. W. Costen and A. P. Godwin, both of Gatesville, and Ehringhaus & Hall, of Elizabeth City, for appellee.
The basis of the present action is the alleged unconstitutionality of chapter 46, Public Local Laws, Extra Session 1924.
It is contended, in the first place, that the act in question is violative of article 2, § 29, of the Constitution, which provides in part as follows:
"The General Assembly shall not pass any local, private or special act or resolution * * * authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or discontinuing of highways, streets, or alleys."
In Brown v. Commissioners, 173 N. C. 598, 92 S. E. 502, it was said that the prohibition of this section of the Constitution was against direct legislation to accomplish the things therein enumerated by any local, private, or special act of the General Assembly. Such is not the purpose or effect of the statute now before us. The designated highway is one of the principal thoroughfares in Gates county, and connects two important state highways, Nos. 30 and 32, which themselves traverse the county, and several others. Furthermore, all the bridges of the various townships...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntyre v. Clarkson, 239
...City of Goldsboro, 180 N.C. 441, 105 S.E. 187; Huneycutt v. Board of Road Commissioners, 182 N.C. 319, 109 S.E. 4; Hill v. Board of Commissioners, 190 N.C. 123, 129 S.E. 154; Reed v. Howerton Engineering Co., 188 N.C. 39, 123 S.E. 479; Fletcher v. Commissioners of Buncombe, 218 N.C. 1, 9 S.......
-
Board of Managers of James Walker Memorial Hospital of Wilmington v. City of Wilmington
...Roebuck v. Board of Trustees, supra [184 N.C. 144, 113 S.E. 677]. Hailey v. Winston-Salem, 196 N.C. 17, 144 S.E. 377; Hill v Board of Com'rs, 190 N.C. 123, 129 S.E. 154; In re Advisory Opinion, 227 N.C. 716 relied upon by the Hospital are A local act is one operating only in a specified loc......
-
Resolutions Passed by City Council of City of Durham, In re
...challenged are only declaratory of, or supplementary to, the powers given the City of Durham under the general law. Hill v. Board of Commissioners, 190 N.C. 123, 129 S.E. 154. In the case of Holton v. Mocksville, supra [189 N.C. 144, 126 S.E. 328], the constitutionality of Chapter 86, of th......
-
Worthington v. Gilmers Inc, (No. 56.)
... ... 16, 1925.Appeal from Superior Court, Wilson County; Sinclair, Judge.Action by S. W. Worthington and another, ... of Wilson, for appellants.Woodard & Rand and Connor & Hill, all of Wilson, for appellee.PER CURIAM. [1] There was no ... Moore v. Silver Valley Mining Co., 104 N. C. 534, 10 S. E. 679; Merrimon v. Paving Co., 142 N. C. 539, 55 S ... ...