Bradley v. City Council of City of Greenville

• Decision Date: 06 February 1948
• Docket Number: 16041.
• Parties: BRADLEY v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF GREENVILLE et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

46 S.E.2d 291

212 S.C. 389

BRADLEY v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF GREENVILLE et al.

No. 16041.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 6, 1948

W. W. Wilkins, of Greenville, for appellant.

Mann & Arnold and J. D. Todd, Jr., all of Greenville, and Huger Sinkler, of Charleston, for respondents.

STUKES, Justice.

Act No 432 of May 19, 1947, 45 Stat. 1145, embodies an ingenious legislative plan to provide public hospital facilities for the people of Greenville County The City of Greenville, which is the county seat, now owns and operates a hospital in the city which is ample for its residents but is unequal to the needs of all of the people of the county. The present estimated population of the latter is 173,900, of which the relatively small area of the city contains an estimated 46,000. The present City Hospital, site, permanent improvements, equipment and other assets, including a substantial amount of cash, is of an appraised value of $1,500,000. The enactment proposes that the county issue general obligation bonds in the same amount, with the proceeds of which the hospital will be expanded and enlarged whereby it will adequately provide for the inhabitants of the entire county, including the city; but the government of the city is naturally unwilling to part with the ownership and management of its hospital without guaranty of the continued operation in such manner as will insure the care of the hospital needs of its population.

The Act appears to be a crystallization of the ideas and plans of the governing bodies of both entities, the county and the city and provides, as will be seen by reference thereto, for a Board (the composition, appointment and tenure of the members of which will be later discussed) which will take over the management and control of the hospital, the proceeds of the bond issue and expand and operate the institution in accord with the terms of the Act. The issuance of the authorized bonds has been approved by the electors of the county and the Board members have been commissioned, have qualified and are ready to proceed.

The City Council of Greenville and the Board of Commissioners of the County have caused to be prepared a proposed contract which is in accord with the terms of the Act and the city authorities are ready to convey the hospital properties to the new Board upon the execution of the agreement. It contains the following provisions, derived from Sec. 3 of the Act:

'III. The County Board, acting for Greenville County, agrees for its part that if the Statute above recited shall afterwards be repealed or amended in any particular, without first obtaining the approval of the corporate authorities of the City of Greenville evidenced by the majority action at a duly called meeting of the City Council thereof, or in the event Greenville County shall hereafter acquire the property and assets which the City shall have conveyed to the said Greenville General Hospital Board of Trustees, as the same may be constituted on the occasion of their acquisition by said Board of Trustees or as the same may have been modified, transformed, converted or changed, and whether the acquisition become effective by operation of law, by voluntary act, or through eminent domain, then in either of such events Greenville County shall be obligated to pay to the City of Greenville the sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand ($1,500,000.00) Dollars, which obligation shall constitute a lien upon all hospital facilities and equipment located within the corporate limits of said City, inferior only to any lien created in favor of revenue bonds issued prior to the occurrence of such event. This covenant or agreement shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the several residents and taxpayers of the City of Greenville and shall be enforceable at law or in equity at the instance of any one or more or either of them.

'For the purpose of this article the words 'repealed or amended in any particular' shall be deemed to include any Statute which would have the effect of altering or changing the method by which the said hospital is operated, managed or controlled, or is in any way inconsistent with the said Statute as the same is now constituted even though the amendatory or repealing statute does not literally alter or repeal said statute.'

The action attacks the constitutionality of the Act of 1947 on several specified grounds which make the points for decision here. Trial in the lower court resulted in the sustention of a demurrer to the complaint and this appeal by plaintiff followed. He is a resident of the city of Greenville and owns taxable property which lies in the city and also some in the county outside the city, so there is no question of his capacity to maintain the action in all its aspects. The legal questions presented are stated by him, and agreed to by respondents, as follows:

1. Is the Act and the contract to be made pursuant to its provisions invalid as an attempt to limit the inherent power of the people of South Carolina, through its General Assembly, to modify, or amend its laws?

2. Does the Act limit or abridge the power of eminent domain?

3. Is the contract ineffective and as a result thereof, is the obligation of the City to convey its hospital ultra vires?

4. Do the powers of the Hospital Board, particularly with respect to the succession of membership, exceed constitutional limitations?

5. Do the obligations to be undertaken by Greenville County exceed its constitutional debt limit?

Short shrift may properly be made of most of the questions. The first appears to result from misapprehension of the nature and effect of the Act. Giving it and the proposed contract full effect, it cannot be said that the General Assembly has attempted to forever tie its and its successors' hands with respect to the hospital. It may take any proper legislative action in the future but it has provided by the present enactment in behalf of the State and its subdivision Greenville County, that if the enabling act be amended or repealed by subsequent legislation without the consent of City Council or if the hospital be acquired by the county by eminent domain or otherwise, the City shall be thereupon reimbursed in the amount of the agreed present value of the City Hospital and appurtenant assets. No constitutional provision has been pointed out which this offends, and such is necessary for successful constitutional attack upon legislation which always carries with it the presumption of validity. ...