Weesner v. Davidson County

• Decision Date: 14 December 1921
• Docket Number: 396.
• Parties: WEESNER v. DAVIDSON COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

109 S.E. 863

182 N.C. 604

WEESNER v. DAVIDSON COUNTY ET AL.

No. 396.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 14, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Webb, Judge.

Action by C. C. Weesner against Davidson County and its Board of Education. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Error.

Civil action to enjoin the levy and collection of a special tax in Arcadia school district, Davidson county, upon the ground that the election authorizing said levy was without warrant of law and therefore void. Two reasons are assigned for the invalidity of the election: (1) It is alleged that seven persons who voted "For Special Tax" were not legal voters, and therefore ineligible to vote; and (2) that the election was held within two years after a former unsuccessful election had been held on the same question in the same district.

From a judgment sustaining the validity of the election, and establishing the legality of the tax, the plaintiff appealed.

Where the meaning of a statute is doubtful, its title may be called in aid of construction; but the caption cannot control where the meaning of the text is clear, especially where the headings of sections have been prepared by compilers, and not by the Legislature itself.

Walser & Walser, of Lexington, for appellant.

Raper & Raper and J. R. McCrary, all of Lexington, for appellees.

STACY J.

We will omit any consideration of the first exception, as it involves only a question of fact, and, indeed, we consider it immaterial, as will presently appear.

The second exception calls for a construction of section 5533 of the Consolidated Statutes. The plaintiff contends that, under this section, the election in question is void, because within two years prior thereto, a similar election was held for the same territory and defeated. It appears from the record that a special tax election was held for Arcadia township, with the exception of Hill's district, on September 9, 1919, at which said election a majority of the registered voters did not vote "For Special Tax." Thereafter, on April 12, 1921, the present election was held for the five districts comprising all the territory of Arcadia township, with the exception of Hill's district and one family. At this election it is alleged that a majority of the qualified voters cast ballots in favor of the special tax.

It will be observed that both elections were held within a space of less than two years apart. This would seem to be contrary to the statute, which provides:

"No election for revoking a special tax in any special tax district shall be ordered and held in the district within less than two years from the date of the election at which the tax was voted and the district established."

And then there is added:

"Nor at any time within less than two years after the date of the last election on the question in the district."

To hold, in accordance with the defendant's contention, that the prohibition refers only to an election held for the purpose of revoking a special tax...