Cain v. South Carolina Public Service Authority
Decision Date | 12 August 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 16658,16658 |
Citation | 72 S.E.2d 177,222 S.C. 200 |
Parties | CAIN et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
R. M. Jefferies, Walterboro, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Charleston, Norval N. Newell, W. D. Simpson, Moncks Corner, for appellant.
Samuel Want, Darlington, Dennis & Denis, Moncks Corner, for respondent.
This action was brought to compel the South Carolina Public Service Authority to convey to the plaintiffs approximately 33.3 acres of a 1170 acre tract of land in Berkeley County, which was acquired from Elizabeth R. Cain by condemnation under an Act of the General Assembly, approved May 31, 1939, 41 St. at L. 265, now incorporated as Sections 9111 to 9125, inclusive, of the 1942 Code. Mrs. Cain died on June 1, 1941, leaving a will wherein she bequeathed and devised all of her property, except household goods and personal effects to her children, who are the plaintiffs in this action. The asserted obligation of the Authority to convey said property to the plaintiffs is based on a repurchase provision contained in the above mentioned Act. The construction of this provision is the focal point of this controversy. The facts and issues presented on this appeal can better be understood by first reviewing the pertinent portions of said Act.
Section 2 (now Section 9112 of the 1942 Code) provides that all 'state authorities' established for the purpose of developing waterways, producing and distributing electric power, reclaiming and draining swampy and flooded lands, improving health conditions, or reforesting water sheds, shall have the right of eminent domain for any of such purposes and are authorized to exercise same in the manner stated in the Act. Section 12 (now Section 9122 of the 1942 Code) states that the powers of condemnation therein given shall be cumulative to, and shall in no way repeal or restrict, any right of condemnation previously given by law to such authorities. Section 3 (now Section 9113 of the 1942 Code) is as follows.
In Section 4 (now Section 9114 of the Code), it is stated that for the purpose of the Act, 'the words 'owner' or 'owners' shall include any one claiming any interest in the property or rights sought to be condemned whether by way of present interest, or by way of vested or contingent remainder, possibility of reverter or otherwise, * * *.'
The remaining sections of the Act need not be reviewed as they relate merely to the procedure to be followed in exercising the right of condemnation.
The South Carolina Public Service Authority was created by the General Assembly in 1934. 38 St. at L. 1507. This Act, as amended, now constitutes Sections 8555-11 to 8555-24, inclusive, of the 1942 Code. Under its terms, the Authority was empowered 'to develop the Cooper River, the Santee River, and the Congaree River in this State, as instrumentalitites of intrastate, interstate and foreign commerce and navigation; to produce, distribute and sell electric power; to reclaim and drain swampy and flooded lands; and to reforest the water sheds of rivers in this State'. The Authority was also given all powers necessary or convenient for the exercise of the powers stated. In Creech v. S. C. Public Service Authority, 200 S.C. 127, 20 S.E.2d 645, 648, the Court said: 'In our opinion, the South Carolina Public Service Authority is a public corporation in the nature of a quasi municipal corporation, exercising certain governmental functions as an agency of the State.'
In the exercise of the foregoing powers, the Authority erected a dam across the Santee River, thereby impounding a large quantity of water in a reservoir or artificial lake, and constructed a diversion canal to carry water from this lake to a basin situate near the head waters of the Cooper River, which basin was made by building additional dams and dikes. It has also erected a power house for the purpose of generation of hydro-electric power. The project was begun in 1939 and was practically completed and placed in operation in 1942. In the construction of this large hydroelectric and navigation project, the Authority acquired, either by purchase or condemnation, more than 200,000 acres of land in several counties, including the County of Berkeley.
Included in the property acquired by condemnation was the 1170 acre tract of land belonging to Mrs. Elizabeth R. Cain. Proceedings for condemnation of this tract were instituted in July, 1939. A trial was had in March, 1940, and the jury fixed the sum of $21,352.50 as the value of the entire tract, or an average of $18.25 per acre. This amount was duly paid and deed executed to the Authority by the Clerk of Court for Berkeley County on April 16, 1940.
When Lake Moultrie, the lower of the two lakes in the Santee-Cooper project, was filled with water to its maximum operating level of 75 feet above mean sea level, the whole of the 1170 acre tract with the exception of 33.3 acres involved in this controversy was actually covered by the waters of said lake. On November 26, 1945, or about three years after the project was completed, plaintiffs demanded that the Authority convey to them the 33.3...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eldridge v. Greenwood
...issue of valuation, and not as a limitation on the nature of the interest the railroad could condemn. Cf. Cain v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., 222 S.C. 200, 72 S.E.2d 177 (1952) (power to condemn in fee simple for hydroelectric project was expressly limited by "right to repurchase" upon......
-
State Through Dept. of Highways v. Bradford
...N.E.2d 771; Oklahoma: City of Cushing v. Gillespie, 208 Okl. 359, 256 P.2d 418, 36 A.L.R.2d 1420; South Carolina: Cain v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 222 S.C. 200, 72 S.E.2d 177; Tennessee: Vinson v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 45 Tenn.App. 161, 321 S.W.2d 841; ......
-
Gray v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 22232
...right to eminent domain must be strictly construed, but repurchase provisions are construed broadly. Cain v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 222 S.C. 200, 72 S.E.2d 177 (1952). However, to construe the statute so broadly as to uphold this claim would contravene the legislative sche......
-
State v. Grimes, 22714
...However, when necessary to effectuate the legislative intent, "and" can be construed to mean "or." Cain v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 222 S.C. 200, 72 S.E.2d 177 (1952). In our opinion, the Legislature did not intend to change the insanity defense when it enacted § 17-24-10. W......