Burriss v. Brock

• Decision Date: 24 June 1913
• Citation: 79 S.E. 193,95 S.C. 104
• Parties: BURRISS et al. v. BROCK et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

79 S.E. 193

95 S.C. 104

BURRISS et al. v. BROCK et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 24, 1913

Action by C. O. Burriss and others to restrain J. A. Brock and others, trustees of the Anderson School District, from issuing bonds. Petition dismissed.

Weston & Aycock, of Columbia, for petitioners. Atty. Gen. Peeples and J. F. Lyon, of Columbia, for respondents.

HYDRICK J.

By an act of the Legislature approved January 5, 1895 (21 Stat 921), the territory embraced within the corporate limits of the city of Anderson was created a separate school district and the city was authorized to issue, and did issue, $20,000 bonds, which were designated as school bonds, the proceeds of which were used to purchase lands and erect school buildings thereon. In 1902 these bonds were refunded. In 1903 the city issued $15,000 more of school bonds, the proceeds of which were used to purchase lands and erect buildings thereon for school purposes. In 1913 the Legislature passed an act (28 Stat. 355) entitled "An act to amend an act to establish the Anderson school district, to authorize the establishment of free graded schools therein, and to provide the means for the equipment and efficient management of the same, approved January 5, A. D. 1895, so as to enlarge the said district and authorize the trustees to issue bonds and to provide the means for the equipment and the efficient management of the new district as amended." The italicized portion of the title above quoted is the title of the act of 1895. The act of 1913 enlarges the old school district of the city of Anderson by annexing certain adjacent territory lying within the boundaries therein designated, and, so enlarged, the school district extends beyond the corporate limits of the city. Among other things, the act authorizes the board of trustees of the new school district to submit to the qualified voters residing therein the question of issuing $100,00 of bonds and provides that $35,000 of the bonds so issued shall be exchanged for, or used to pay, the $35,000 of school bonds issued by the city of Anderson, and the balance for the purpose of improving the present school property, acquiring additional property, and erecting buildings for school purposes. The title to all the property procured by the proceeds of the $35,000 of school bonds issued by the city of Anderson is in the trustees, who were continued in office by the act of 1913 and made trustees of the new school district; and under that act all the property of the old school district becomes the property of the new school district. No part of the territory annexed to the old school district was under any bond debt for school purposes; nor was there any school property therein, so that the new district acquired no school property from the annexed territory.

At the election ordered by the trustees, only one box was provided, which was at the courthouse, in the city of Anderson, where all the voters of the district had to vote. The election resulted in favor of issuing the bonds, and, the trustees having advertised for bids for so much of them as are to be sold, this action was brought to enjoin the issuing thereof.

The first objection made is that the act of 1913 violates section 13 of article 2 of the Constitution in authorizing the trustees to hold an election on the question of issuing bonds without requiring, as a condition precedent of such election, a petition of a majority of the freeholders of the district. The section in question reads: "In authorizing a special election in any incorporated city or town in this state for purpose of bonding the same, the General Assembly shall prescribe as a condition precedent to the holding of said election a petition from a majority of the freeholders of said city or town as shown by its tax books, and at such elections all electors of such city or town who are duly qualified for voting under section 12 of this article, and who have paid all taxes, state, county and municipal, for the previous year, shall be allowed to vote; and the vote of a majority of those voting in said election shall be necessary to authorize the issue of said bonds." Even a casual reading of this section shows that it is not applicable to the election authorized by the act, which was not in any incorporated city or town, in the sense in which those words are used in the Constitution, nor for the purpose of bonding the same. But it was in a special school district, which was not even coterminous with the city, though it would have made no difference if it had been, because the purpose of the election was the bonding of the school district and not the city. The Constitution (section 5, art. 10) contemplates the issuing of bonds by different political divisions or municipal corporations extending over the same territory or parts thereof.

There is no provision in the Constitution which requires a petition of freeholders as a condition precedent to an election on the question of issuing bonds of a school district, as that above quoted with regard to issuing city or town bonds.

Section 1743 of the Civil Code of 1912 requires a written petition of at least one-third of the...