Bolt v. Cobb
| Citation | 225 S.C. 408,82 S.E.2d 789 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 16883,16883 |
| Parties | BOLT et al. v. COBB et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
C. S. Bowen, Greenville, for appellants.
E. Harry Agnew, Watkins & Watkins, Anderson, for respondents.
This action challenges the validity of Act No. 390 of 1953, 48 Stat. 692, and the special election held thereunder. The Act is entitled, 'To provide for a special election in Anderson County for the purpose of determining if Anderson County shall issue one million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars of general obligation bonds for hospital facilities, to provide for the issuance and payment of such bonds if such election results favorably, to prescribe the hospital facilities to be acquired with the proceeds of such bonds, and to empower the County Board of Commissioners of Anderson County to make such hospital facilities available for use by the Anderson County Hospital Association.'
The preamble recites that Anderson County Hospital Association is an elemosynary corporation with a membership of the thousands of citizens who have contributed to it, by means of whose gifts it has erected and operates a hospital with two hundred beds and other facilities, which latter are ample to supply the needs of more patients than there are now beds; hospitalization is furnished for many charity cases for which payment is made in part by Anderson County; more bedrooms and wards are necessary to meet the need for hospitalization of the sick of the county, both charity and pay patients. The foregoing recitals are made legislative findings by section 1 of the Act and further that it has been determined by the General Assembly that it is not desirable or economical to build and operate a separate hospital and the need would be better met by additional facilities, designed to complement and supplement those of the Association, whereupon it was determined to construct a separate building or buildings fashioned to complement the existing facilities or to be used independently thereof. The legislative findings contained in the act are not controverted.
The concluding provisions of Section 1 of the act follow:
'It [the General Assembly] has further determined to permit the County Board of Commissioners of Anderson County (hereafter called County Board) to lease these facilities to the Association for a nominal rental, for a period of time as long as the said County Board shall approve, provided that during such period of time the facilities to be furnished by the County and the existing facilities of the Association shall be made available to the public of Anderson County under such conditions and regulations as the County Board and the Association shall mutually agree upon, and which shall be designated [sic] to permit the greatest possible amount of free service to the residents of Anderson County, unable to pay for such service.'
The following constitutes sections 5 and 6 of the act:
It is seen from the foregoing that the plan of the act is that the county will from the proceeds of the issuance of its bonds construct hospital facilities which may be leased for a nominal rental, for such length of time as the County Board may determine, to a private, although eleemosynary, corporation for operation under such terms and conditions as it and the County Board may agree upon in their mutual interest. The trial record indicates that the county is now dependent on the present hospital, operated by the respondent Association, for the hospitalization of its needy sick. The following is from an audit of the hospital for the calendar year 1952, as it appears in the record:
Total number of patient days 73,287
Number paid days 64,534
Number free days 8,753
-----------------
Total 73,287
Cost for caring for free patients $114,314.18
Contributed by county $36,391.00
Contributed by State 31,922.00
Contributed by others 207.07
Loss to Hospital Asso. 37,035.89
-----------------
Total $114,314.18 (sic)
The election was duly held pursuant to the terms of the act and resulted in a majority favorable to the issuance of the bonds. The appellants thereafter brought this action to enjoin the issuance of the bonds and the other execution of the terms of the act. From adverse judgment they appeal. Their contentions are threefold: First, that the act violates sections 5 and 6 of Article X of the Constitution of 1895; and, second, the published notice of election was fatally defective, as (third) was the form of the ballot which was provided and used at the election.
The constitutional question will be first considered. Article X, § 5, of the constitution provides that the corporate authorities of counties may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes. Section 6 is in part as follows: 'The General Assembly shall not have power to authorize any county or township to levy a tax or issue bonds for any purpose except for educational purposes, to build and repair public roads, buildings and bridges, to maintain and support prisoners, pay jurors, County officers, and for litigation, quarantine and court expenses and for ordinary County purposes, to support paupers, and pay past indebtedness'.
The erection, maintenance and operation of hospitals by the State and its subdivisions had long been an approved and common activity. Battle v. Willcox, 128 S.C. 500, 122 S.E. 516; Law v. City of Spartanburg, 148 S.C. 229, 146 S.E. 12; Crouch v. Benet, 198 S.C. 185, 17 S.E.2d 320; Smith v. Robertson, 210 S.C. 99, 41 S.E.2d 631; McLure v. McElroy, 211 S.C. 106, 44 S.E.2d 101; Bradley v. City Council of Greenville, 212 S.C. 389, 46 S.E.2d 291; and Parker v. Bates, 216 S.C. 52, 56 S.E.2d 723. A hospital was referred to in Bradley v. City Council, supra, [212 S.C. 389, 46 S.E.2d 295], as 'a needed public facility.' Also see articles 2 et seq. of Chapter 4 of Title 32 of the Code of 1952.
The leading case of Battle v. Willcox, supra, is conclusive against the appellants in this case upon both constitutional grounds which they invoke. Both were unsuccessfully invoked there. Specifically, appellants point to the authorization of the Anderson County Board of Commissioners to lease the projected hospital building to Anderson County Hospital Association as unconstitutional because it would convert, it is contended, the property to a private rather than a public purpose. However, the same feature was in the Battle case and was vainly urged upon appeal. The act in that case was No. 436 of 1923, 33 Stat. 758. Section 4 of it provided as follows: 'When said hospital is completed and ready for use the said commission herein appointed shall have the authority, and they are hereby, authorized to contract with some reliable person or persons, firm or corporation, for the operation of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills Mill v. Hawkins
...unless its conflict with some provision of the constitution appears so clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt. Bolt v. Cobb, 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789; Edens v. City of Columbia, 228 S.C. 563, 91 S.E.2d 280; State ex rel. Thompson v. Seigler, 230 S.C. 115, 94 S.E.2d 231. The hig......
-
Broadhurst v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH ELECT.
...Greene, 314 S.C. 449, 445 S.E.2d 451; Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 408 S.E.2d 232 (1991); Bolt v. Cobb, 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789 (1954); Harrell v. City of Columbia, 216 S.C. 346, 58 S.E.2d 91 (1950). In determining whether an irregularity in the conduct of a......
-
Knight v. State Bd. of Canvassers
...Executive Committee, 271 S.C. 364, 247 S.E.2d 439 (1978); Berry v. Spigner, 226 S.C. 183, 84 S.E.2d 381 (1954); Bolt v. Cobb, 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789 (1954). Petitioner further concedes that under this general rule his election protest would fail due to the facts developed in this recor......
-
Ex parte Tipton
...evidence that the voters were in fact misled may be required to overcome the presumption to which we have referred. Bolt v. Cobb, 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789. But where the question, on its face, is manifestly erroneous and misleading, there is no room for presumption, nor is evidence, othe......