Herbert v. Griffith
Decision Date | 22 September 1914 |
Docket Number | 8932. |
Citation | 82 S.E. 986,99 S.C. 1 |
Parties | HERBERT v. GRIFFITH, MAYOR, ET AL. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; W. A Holman, Special Judge.
Injunction by R. B. Herbert against L. A. Griffith, Mayor, and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Arthur Metts, Jr., of Columbia, for appellant.
G. P Logan, City Atty., and Shand, Benet, Shand & McGowan, all of Columbia, for respondents.
Under the provisions of section 3050 of the Civil Code of 1912, an election was held in the city of Columbia on the question of issuing $500,000 of bonds. The ballots--some having the word "Yes" and some the word "No" printed thereon--read as follows:
"For the purpose of enlarging, extending and repairing its waterworks, waterworks system and plant, its sewerage system and plant, shall the city of Columbia issue coupon bonds as provided by law to the amount of five hundred thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be legally issued by said city."
The result was in favor of issuing the bonds.
The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the issue on four grounds:
As to the first ground, the respondents allege in their answer that the waterworks plant and sewerage system are one and inseparable, each being necessary to the other; that the same plant furnishes water for domestic and other uses, and for the discharge of sewerage, it being impossible to ascertain the amount used for these respective purposes; that it is impossible to ascertain what proportion of the enlargement of the water plant will be for the purpose of operating sewers, and impossible to enlarge its sewerage system without a corresponding extension of its water supply. This contention is plausible, but not sound. It appears from the record that the city of Columbia had a water plant 40 years before it had a sewerage system. The statute under which these bonds were voted provides for the issuing of bonds "for the purchasing, repairing, or improving of city or town hall, or park or grounds therefor, markets and guardhouse, enlarging, extending or establishing electric light plants or other lights, or waterworks or sewerage." It will be seen that the various purposes for which bonds may be issued are stated in the alternative which indicates that, to the legislative mind, they are susceptible of separate and independent consideration. It must not be inferred from this that each of these alternative purposes must necessarily be submitted separately. Where two or more of them are closely connected with the principal purpose, the reason for a separate submission would be wanting. For instance, there would be no valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial