Whitford v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Craven County

• Decision Date: 28 May 1912
• Citation: 74 S.E. 1014,159 N.C. 160
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WHITFORD. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF CRAVEN COUNTY.

74 S.E. 1014

(159 N.C. 160)

WHITFORD.

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF CRAVEN COUNTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 28, 1912.

1. Civil Rights (§ 9*)—Discrimination as to Schools—County Farm-Life Schools —Statutes.

Pub. Laws 1911, c. 84, providing that there shall not be more than one farm-life school in any county, means that there shaH not be more than one school for the instruction of both races, in separate buildings, with equal facilities, and the having of two or more buildings for the purpose of racial separation does not constitute two legally distinct schools; so that the act, so construed, does not deprive the local authorities of the power to provide equal facilities for the two races.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Civil Rights, Cent. Dig. § 6; Dec. Dig. § 9.*]

2. Constitutional Law (§ 48*)—Statutes-Validity—Presumptions.

The court may not declare a statute void, unless it is clearly so beyond any reasonable doubt; and there is always a strong presumption in favor of the validity of a statute, which must be overcome by some convincing reason to induce the court to declare it void.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 46; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Whedbee, Judge.

Action by G. A. Whitford against the Board of Commissioners of Craven County. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. A. Nunn, for appellant.

E. M. Green, for appellee.

WALKER, J. This action was brought to restrain the collection of a tax and the issue of bonds by the county of Craven and township No. 1 in the said county. The tax was levied and the bonds are proposed to be issued for the establishment, support, and maintenance of a county farm-life school in the county and township, under and by virtue of Public Laws of 1911, c. 84, the provisions of which have been fully complied with. Elections were duly held in the county and township; and by a majority of the qualified voters the levy of a tax of $2,500 and the issue of bonds by the county to the par value of $5,000, and by the township to the amount of $10,000, was authorized for the purposes mentioned in the statute. These and other facts, not necessary to be stated, were alleged in the complaint, to which the defendants demurred. His honor, Judge Whedbee, sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff attacks the validity of the tax levy and the bonds proposed to be issued, upon the ground that in section 17 of the act it is provided that not more than one farm-life school shall be established in any county, and by this prohibition it is argued that the local authorities are deprived of the power to provide equal facilities for the two races; but we do not think this follows. What ...