Arkwright Mills v. Murph, 16516

Decision Date13 June 1951
Docket NumberNo. 16516,16516
PartiesARKWRIGHT MILLS v. MURPH.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Arnold R. Merchant, Spartanburg, for appellant.

J. Davis Kerr, Thomas A. Evins, Spartanburg, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

We are asked on this appeal to determine whether a manufacturing plant established in 1948 by Arkwright Mills at Camp Croft, Spartanburg County, is exempt from the payment of all county taxes, other than for school purposes, for the years 1949 to 1953, inclusive. The taxes mentioned for the year 1949, amounting to $2,560, were paid under protest. Thereafter this action was brought by Arkwright Mills, a South Carolina corporation, against the Treasurer of Spartanburg County for the recovery of said amount with interest. A declaration is also sought to the effect that there will be no liability for such taxes during the following four years.

The claimed tax exemption is based on Section 2880(2) of the 1942 Code, which is as follows: 'In Spartanburg County every new manufacturing enterprise, the capital stock of which is now less than twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars, established since February 28, 1929, and every addition to any existing manufacturing enterprise, the cost of which addition is not less than twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars, completed since February 28, 1929, shall be exempted from all county taxes of Spartanburg County, except for school purposes, for five years from the date of the establishment of such enterprises or the date of the completion of such addition to any existing enterprises. Provided, further, that no refunds are to be permitted under this subsection.' (Italics ours.)

The foregoing section was amended by Act No. 425 of the 1944 Acts of the General Assembly, 43 St. at L. 1252, by adding the following: 'Provided, Further, that no tax emption hereunder shall be granted for additions to existing manufacturing plants when such additions are completed subsequent to June 30, 1944.'

The case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts which the trial Judge summarized as follows: 'That plaintiff, for many years prior to 1947, was a South Carolina corporation engaged in the manufacture of heavy drills and sheetings with a plant situated in Arkwright M. D. School District, Spartanburg County, S. C.; that its capital stock was and is far in excess of Twenty-five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars; that in 1947 it purchased from the Spartanburg County Foundation forty-nine (49) acres of land and ten (10) buildings situated thereon in Co-operative School District, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, which property was part of the old 'Camp Croft' military reservation; that this property was returned for taxation in the Auditor's Office for Spartanburg County for the year 1948 and valued for taxation as follows: Forty-nine (49) acres--ten (10) buildings, value $12,530.00; that during the year 1948 Arkwright Mills improved the buildings on this property by adding a sprinkler and humidifier system at a § cost in excess of $52,000.00, installed machinery therein at a cost in excess of $327,000.00 and otherwise renovated and improved the property and equipped the same for the purpose of manufacturing cotton goods at a total cost to it of the sum of $665,158.23; that for the taxable year commencing January 1, 1949, these properties in Co-operative School District increased from the 1948 valuation of $12,530.00 to $128,000.00, there being included in the assessed valuation a manufacturing or personal property tax assessed by the South Carolina Tax Commission of $115,470.00; that during that latter part of 1948, Arkwright Mills began at its 'Camp Croft' site the manufacture of lightweight fancy goods under government contract; that Arkwright Mills continues to manufacture heavy drills and sheetings in its plant in Arkwright M. D. School District; that the type of goods manufactured at its 'Camp Croft' site is dissimilar in every respect to products manufactured in the Arkwright M. D. School District plant and there is no interchangeable or related work between the enterprises; that the enterprise in Co-operative School District, 'Camp Croft' site employs in excess of sixty (60) employees and they, at all times, are employed solely in the enterprise in Co-operative School District, 'Camp Croft' site and the superintendents of each plant are different; that the books of each are kept separate and apart from each other at the company's executive office in the Arkwright M. D. School District office, that, though not set out in detail in the Stipulation, the records in the Auditor's Office for Spartanburg County disclose that, in addition to the tax return made by Arkwright Mills in Co-operative School District, it made and makes a separate return in Arkwright M. D. School District showing an assessed valuation there of $182,800.00; the physical locations of the two enterprises are approximately five miles apart.'

The Court below concluded that under the foregoing facts, the plant at Camp Croft was exempt from the payment of all county taxes, except for school purposes, during the years in controversy. From an order granting the relief sought in the complaint, the county has appealed.

The first question presented is the proper interpretation of Section 2880(2). It is respondent's contention that the word 'now' which we italicized in quoting said section is an obvious clerical error for which there should be substituted the word 'not', so that said section would read as follows: 'In Spartanburg County every new manufacturing enterprise, the capital stock of which is not less than twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars * * * and every addition to any existing manufacturing enterprise, the cost of which addition is not less than twenty-five thousand (25,000.00) dollars * * * shall be exempted from all county taxes of Spartanburg County, except for school purposes, for five years * * *.'

Appellant asserts that Section 2880(2) is not ambiguous and should be literally interpreted as restricting the exemption to new manufacturing enterprises having a capital stock of less than $25,000.

The statute now embodied in Section 2880(2) of the 1942 Code was enacted in 1933, 38 St. at L. 150 and in 1934 was amended in certain particulars not material to this controversy. 38 St. at L. 1386. Both in the original statute and in the amendment, there is found the controversial word 'now'.

It is elementary that the cardinal rule for the construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the lawmaking body. All technical rules of construction are subservient to this paramount consideration. In determining the legislative intent, the Court will, if necessary, reject the literal import of words used in a statute. It has been said that 'words ought to be subservient to the intent, and not the intent to the words.' Greenville Baseball, Inc. v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813, 816. In Stackhouse v. Rowland, 86 S.C. 419, 68 S.E. 561, will be found a review of numerous cases in which clerical errors have been corrected by the courts pursuant to this principle. Also, see the recent case of Ashley v. Ware Shoals Manufacturing Co., 210 S.C. 273, 42 S.E.2d 390, in which the word 'usual' as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act was construed to mean 'unusual'.

In determining the legislative intent, it is proper to consider the purpose sought to be accomplished. In Duke Power Co. v. Bell, 156 S.C. 299, 152 S.E. 865, 871, where the Court had under consideration a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1960
    ... ... 433, 73 [237 S.C. 82] S.E.2d 456; Arkwright Mills v. Murph, 219 S.C ... 438, 65 S.E.2d 665; Spartanburg County v ... ...
  • Samson v. Greenville Hosp. System
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1989
    ... ... See Arkwright Mills v. Murph, 219 S.C. 438, 65 S.E.2d 665 (1951); Cox v. Cox, 262 S.C ... ...
  • Town of Forest Acres v. Seigler, 16782
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 28, 1953
    ...'unusual', the phraseology used in the original act. We had occasion to apply this principle in the recent case of Arkwright Mills v. Murph, 219 S.C. 438, 65 S.E.2d 665. We shall now undertake to determine whether under Sections 7230 and 7231, as corrected in the manner above stated, the an......
  • Abell v. Bell, 17118
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 15, 1956
    ...223 S.C. 252, 75 S.E.2d 361. It is proper, too, in seeking the legislative intent, to consider cognate legislation. Arkwright Mills v. Murph, 219 S.C. 438, 65 S.E.2d 665; Edwards v. State Educational Finance Commission, 222 S.C. 433, 73 S.E.2d 456. Subsequent legislation may be of service a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT