# Hinson v. Board of Commissioners

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · June 19, 1940 · 218 N.C. 13

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9811665

## Case

- **Full name:** J. S. Hinson, H. L. Evans, Carl Rose, John Colbert, R. S., Walters, and J. A. Lyons v. the Board of Commissioners of Yadkin County, D. A. Reynolds, J. W. Shore, and L. L. Smitherman, Commissioners.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 19, 1940
- **Citations:** 218 N.C. 13; 9 S.E.2d 614; 1940 N.C. LEXIS 92
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by BakNhtll
- **Judges:** Baknhtll, Devin
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9811665

## Opinion text

BakNhtll, J.,
dissenting: I am compelled to dissent to the majority opinion for the reasons set forth in my dissent filed in Fletcher v. Comrs. of Buncombe, ante, 1, and for a further reason not therein set out, which reason is equally applicable to the Fletcher case, supra.
In prohibiting the enactment of local laws creating school districts or changing or altering the lines thereof, Art. II, sec. 29, of the Constitution provides: “Nor shall the General Assembly enact any such local, private or special act by the partial repeal of a general law.” The local law under which defendants seek to create a school district was, in this case, enacted after the General School Machinery Act of 1939. It constitutes a partial repeal of at least two of the provisions of the general law, to wit: (1) The provision that no taxes shall be levied except as *15 provided in the general law, and (2) Tbe provision that the capital outlay funds shall be provided by a county-wide levy.
I do not consider Brown v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 598 , authoritative. At the time that decision was rendered the State had not assumed control of the State Highways or the maintenance of county roads. The act under consideration in that case was not in conflict with any State policy and there is no provision in the Constitution requiring the State to construct and maintain public roads similar to the requirement in respect to schools, and it related exclusively to financing roads.
DeviN and "WiNbobNE, JJ., concur in this opinion. .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9811665. Public record. Not legal advice.