Wynn v. Trustees of Charlotte Community College System
| Decision Date | 08 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 236,236 |
| Citation | 255 N.C. 594,122 S.E.2d 404 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Roy S. WYNN and James D. Martin, on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of the County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina, v. TRUSTEES OF CHARLOTTE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, a body corporate, J. Murrey Atkins, Chairman; Thomas M. Belk, C. A. McKnight, John A. McRae, Dr. E. A. Beaty, Sheldon P. Smith, Dr. Thomas Watkins, Sr., J. Murrey Atkins, R. L. Taylor, John Paul Lucas, Addison H. Reese, Linn D. Garibaldi, and Oliver Rowe, Trustees of Charlotte Community College, a body corporate; J. N. Pease & Company, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, and Dickerson, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation. |
J. Charles Morris, Charlotte, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Helms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston, E. Osborne Ayscue, Jr., and McCleneghan, Miller & Creasy, Charlotte, for defendants, appellees.
The demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint. The rules applicable have been often stated and are well settled. Pressly v. Walker, 238 N.C. 732, 78 S.E.2d 920, and cases cited; Glover v. Brotherhood, 250 N.C. 35, 108 S.E.2d 78, and cases cited. Our task is to determine whether plaintiffs, upon the facts alleged, liberally construed in their favor, have a cause of action.
The remedy of injunction is available to a taxpayer when a tax levy or assessment, or some part thereof, is challenged on the ground (1) the tax or assessment is itself illegal or invalid, or (2) for an illegal or unauthorized purpose. Barbee v. Board of Com'rs of Wake, 210 N.C. 717, 719, 188 S.E. 314, and cases cited; G.S. § 105-406.
Plaintiffs allege ad valorem taxes levied by Mecklenburg County will be specifically increased in the amount required to pay the principal and interest on the 'Charlotte Community College Bonds.' They do not challenge the validity of the bonds or of the tax levied for the payment thereof. Indeed, they allege, clearly and positively, that the bonds and tax were duly authorized, 'with the proceeds to be used by the Charlotte Community College System for construction of new campuses for Charlotte College and Carver College.'
Plaintiffs allege they will suffer irreparable injury unless injunctive relief is granted. They base this allegation solely on their status as taxpayers of Mecklenburg County. Thus, the question presented is whether plaintiffs, as taxpayers, may enjoin the use of any portion of the bond proceeds for the construction of Carver College.
'The Community College Act' of 1957 (S.L.1957, c. 1098) is now codified as G.S. Chapter 116, Article, 3 §§ 116-47 through 116-62. A 'community college,' as defined therein, is an educational institution dedicated primarily to the particular needs of a community or an area, offering the freshman and sophomore courses of a college of arts and sciences and/or the first or first and second year courses of a two-year technical institute of college grade, with authority to offer (in addition thereto) a variety of occupational, vocational, avocational and recreational training programs. 'Such college may consist of one or more units operating within the boundaries of one county.' G.S. § 116-49.
The body corporate, 'The Trustees of the Charlotte Community College System,' as directed by its governing body, the board of trustees, established two units. The statute expressly authorized it to do so.
Plaintiffs do not challenge the use of the bond proceeds for the construction of Charlotte College of the 267-acre tract. Indeed, by asserting the College System should be limited to one unit, namely, Charlotte College, they imply all proceeds from the sale of the duly authorized bonds should be used solely for the construction of Charlotte College. Clearly, it makes no difference, in respect of the amount of taxes plaintiffs will be required to pay, whether the bond proceeds are used in part for the construction of Carver College or solely for the construction of Charlotte College.
Whether the College System should consist of one or more units was for determination by the board of trustees. Its primary responsibility was to provide educational facilities, at junior college level, to serve the particular needs of the community. It was well within the authority of the board of trustees, in the exercise of its discretion and judgment, to determine that a greater number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. State, No. 105PA91
...478-79 (1968) (collection of illegal or invalid tax--as distinguished from an erroneous tax--may be enjoined); Wynn v. Trustees, 255 N.C. 594, 599, 122 S.E.2d 404, 407 (1961) (injunction available to taxpayer when tax is challenged because illegal, invalid, or levied or assessed for unautho......
-
Goldston v. State
...generally: A taxpayer, as such, does not have standing to attack the constitutionality of any and all legislation. Wynn v. Trustees, 255 N.C. 594, 122 S.E.2d 404; Carringer v. Alverson, 254 N.C. 204, 118 S.E.2d 408; Fox v. Commissioners of Durham, supra; Turner v. [City of ]Reidsville, supr......
-
Orange County v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp.
...where a taxpayer shows that the tax levied upon him is for an unconstitutional, illegal or unauthorized purpose, Wynn v. Trustees, 255 N.C. 594, 122 S.E.2d 404 (1961), that the carrying out of the challenged provision 'will cause him to sustain personally, a direct and irreparable injury,' ......
-
Munger v. State
...Nicholson v. State Education Assistance Authority, 275 N.C. 439, 447, 168 S.E.2d 401, 406 (1969) (citing Wynn v. Trustees, 255 N.C. 594, 122 S.E.2d 404 (1961); Carringer v. Alverson, 254 N.C. 204, 118 S.E.2d 408 (1961); Fox v. Commissioners of Durham, 244 N.C. 497, 94 S.E.2d 482 (1956); Tur......