Gunter v. Gayden

• Citation: 65 S.E. 948,84 S.C. 48
• Parties: GUNTER et al. v. GAYDEN et al.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1909
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

65 S.E. 948

84 S.C. 48

GUNTER et al. v. GAYDEN et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 23, 1909

Certiorari by J. L. Gunter and others against J. A. Gayden and others to review a decision as to the validity of a municipal election. Election adjudicated void.

Thomas & Thomas and D. W. Robinson, for petitioners. W. W. Hawes for respondents.

HYDRICK J.

This was a petition in the original jurisdiction of this court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the intendant and wardens of the town of Brookland as to the validity of an election held on the 14th August, 1908, on the question of extending the corporate limits of the town.

It appears from the agreed statement of facts, upon which the case was submitted, that in said election 83 votes were cast by electors residing within the corporate limits of the town 70 in favor of and 13 against the proposed extension, and that 86 votes were cast by electors residing in the territory proposed to be annexed, 63 in favor of annexation, and 23 against it; that 125 of those who voted in the election were registered by the board of registration for Lexington county within 30 days of the election; that 4 of them were registered within 10 days of the election; and that 12 of them were not registered at all during the year 1908 prior to the election; that the managers of the election within the corporate limits of the town did not require any of the voters to produce proof of the payment of taxes during the previous year. The election was contested on various grounds but the contest was overruled, and the result declared to be in favor of the proposed extension of the corporate limits.

The statute (section 1997, Civ. Code 1902) provides that the corporate limits of any town may be extended by a majority vote of the qualified electors residing therein and of the territory proposed to be annexed in an election held upon the petition of a majority of the freeholders of the territory proposed to be annexed. Section 11 of article 2 of the Constitution provides: "The registration books shall close at least thirty days before an election, during which time transfers and registration shall not be legal." There is a proviso which does not affect the questions under consideration. It is contended by the respondents that the above-qouted provision of the Constitution was not intended to apply to municipal and special elections, but only to general elections. The language used certainly does not warrant such a construction. It...