Woodard v. Carteret County, 123

• Decision Date: 12 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 123,123
• Citation: 153 S.E.2d 809,270 N.C. 55
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: W. L. WOODARD and M. B. Morey, on behalf of themselves severally and jointly and all others similarly situated, v. CARTERET COUNTY, North Carolina, A. B. Cooper, Chairman, George D. Phillips, Moses Howard, E. W. Downum and Staton Moore, the Board of County Commissionersof Carteret County, Raymond T. Edwards, Chairman, Frank A. Cassiano andClifford R.Tilghman, constituting the Board of Elections of Carteret County, NorthCarolina, and Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney-General of the State of NorthCarolina.

Page 809

153 S.E.2d 809

270 N.C. 55

W. L. WOODARD and M. B. Morey, on behalf of themselves severally and jointly and all others similarly situated, v. CARTERET COUNTY, North Carolina, A. B. Cooper, Chairman George D. Phillips, Moses Howard, E. W. Downum and Staton Moore, the Board of County Commissionersof Carteret County Raymond T. Edwards, Chairman, Frank A. Cassiano andClifford R.Tilghman, constituting the Board of Elections of Carteret County, NorthCarolina, and Thomas Wade Bruton Attorney-General of the State of NorthCarolina.

No. 123.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 12, 1967.

Wheatly & Bennett, by Thomas S. Bennett, Beaufort, for plaintiff appellants.

Hamilton, Hamilton & Phillips, by Luther Hamilton, and Harvey Hamilton, Jr., Morehead City, for defendant appellees.

PARKER, Chief Justice.

G.S. § 1--264 states:

'This article (Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act) is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations, and it is to be liberally construed and administered.'

G.S. § 1--254 states in relevant part:

'Any person * * * whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute * * *, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the * * * statute * * *, and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.'

The courts have on numerous occasions stated that the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act furnishes a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of a statute, provided there is an actual or justiciable controversy between the parties in respect to their rights under the statute. 22 Am.Jur.2d, Declaratory Judgments, § 25; 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments §§ 45, 46, 47.

In Chronicle & Gazette Pub. Co. v. Attorney General, 94 N.H. 148, 48 A.2d 478, 168 A.L.R. 879, the Court said:

'A petition for a declaratory judgment is particularly appropriate to determine the constitutionality of a statute when the parties desire and the public need requires a speedy determination of important public interests involved therein.'

In Allison v. Sharp, 209 N.C. 477, 184 S.E. 27, the Court held that the Uniform Declaratory, judgment Act affords a means of testing the validity of a statute requiring persons presenting themselves for registration to prove to the satisfaction of the registrar their ability to read and write any section of the Constitution, plaintiffs and all the people of the State being vitally affected by the statute.

G.S. § 1--151 reads: 'In the construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect its allegations shall be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties.'

The office of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading, admitting, for the purpose, the truth of factual averments well stated and such relevant inferences as may be reasonably deduced therefrom, but it does not admit any legal inferences or conclusions of law asserted by the pleader. McKinney v. High Point, 237 N.C. 66, 74 S.E.2d 440.

It appears that all necessary persons have been made parties to this action by plaintiffs. Considering the allegations in the complaint, according to the established rule, they disclose the existence of a real and justiciable controversy between the parties who have a substantial and legally protectible interest in the subject matter of the litigation, and that the plaintiffs would be adversely affected by the enforcement of the challenged Acts, and that all the people of Carteret County are vitally affected by the challenged Acts as to the following questions: (1) Whether the 'one man--one vote' principle announced by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, and in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, applies to representation on the Board of County Commissioners; (2) if so, whether the apportionment accomplished in Carteret County by the 1963 and 1965 Acts meets the general standards suggested in Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620, and other United States Supreme Court decisions; (3) whether the North Carolina General Assembly was constitutionally authorized to extend the terms of office of members of the Board of County Commissioners of Carteret County; and (4) whether the court should direct primary and general elections to be held immediately to elect five Commissioners from ...