Banks v. City of Raleigh
ROY M. BANKS v. CITY OF RALEIGH Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
The question for decision is whether ch. 463, Public-Local Laws 1941, providing for an extension of the corporate limits of the city of Ealeigh, is valid in whole or in part.
It is the opinion of a majority of the Court that with the exception of the proviso in the 4th section which offends against the constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation, Art. V, section 3, Anderson v. Asheville, 194 N. C., 117 , 138 S. E., 715 , the Act in question is valid, and that the proviso is divisible and separable from the remainder of the statute.
R. R. v. Reid, 187 N. C., 320 , 121 S. E., 534 ;
Comrs. v. Boring, 175 N. C., 105 , 95 S. E., 43 . The Act then stands with the proviso deleted as was decided in the court below.
The view of the minority is, that the presumption of inseparability should prevail and the entire Act declared void.
Minton v. Early, 183 N. C., 199 , 111 S. E., 347 ;
Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N. C., 451 , 88 S. E., 640 ;
Electric Bond & Share v. Security Exchange, 303 U. S., 419 .
The pertinent principles of construction are well settled. The divergence of opinion arises over a different conception of the significance to be ascribed to the unconstitutional provision in section 4 of the Act and the effect of its elision. The majority voting in favor of affirmance, the judgment will be upheld.
On plaintiff’s appeal, Affirmed.
On defendants’ appeal, Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.