Covington v. McInnis
| Decision Date | 10 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | 12423. |
| Parties | COVINGTON v. McINNIS et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Original application by J. C. Covington to enjoin the issuance of school district bonds, opposed by John McInnis and others composing the Board of Trustees of School District No. 9 of Marlboro County. Petition dismissed, and injunction dissolved.
J. N Nathans, of Charleston, for petitioner.
McColl & Stevenson, of Bennettsville, for respondents.
This is an application in the original jurisdiction of the court to permanently enjoin the issuance of bonds of Clio school district No. 9 of Marlboro county, in the state of South Carolina. The petitioner for himself and other taxpayers in the district seeks to have the proposed bonds declared illegal on two grounds specified in the agreed statement of facts, submitted as a controversy without action.
It appears that on the 19th day of April, 1920, an election was held in the school district on the issuance of $50,000 of bonds, the proceeds to be used for the purpose of erecting a building and maintaining the schools in said district, which election resulted in favor of the issuance of said bonds. Because of the 8 per cent. limitation of the Constitution the trustees were advised that the district had no power to issue more than $32,000 of bonds, and bonds to that amount were issued and sold. Thereafter, in 1927, an amendment to article 10, § 5, of the Constitution was adopted (see 35 St. at Large, p. 177), providing that Clio school district No. 9 was expressly authorized to vote bonds to an amount not exceeding 16 per cent. of the value of all taxable property in such territory as valued for taxation by the state, under such restrictions and limitations as the General Assembly may prescribe, and where the question of incurring such indebtedness is submitted to the qualified electors of said school district as provided in the Constitution upon the question of bonded indebtedness. It is under this language quoted verbatim from the amendment, that the objections hereinafter discussed arise.
It is contended, first, by the petitioner that, as more than seven years has elapsed since the authority was given by the election to the trustees to issue the bonds and a part of said bonds having been issued and sold, after so long a lapse of time the trustees are now without authority to issue the remaining portion of said bonds or any part thereof.
This court has recognized the validity of bonds issued many years after the election. The voters in the election declared their willingness to have the school district issue $50,000 of bonds. At the time of the election on account of the 8 per cent. limitation of the Constitution the full amount of these bonds could not be issued, but this disability having been removed and in the opinion of the trustees it is necessary for the school district to come into funds to be used for the purposes for which the election was held, there can be no valid objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
... ... question, and therefore the court can consider the conditions ... under which the amendment was passed." Covington v ... McInnis , 144 S.C. 391, 394, 142 S.E. 650, 651 (1928); ... see Reese , 237 S.C. at 358, 117 S.E.2d at 376-77 ... ("When the ... ...
-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
...on this question, and therefore the court can consider the conditions under which the amendment was passed." Covington v. McInnis , 144 S.C. 391, 394, 142 S.E. 650, 651 (1928) ; see Reese , 237 S.C. at 358, 117 S.E.2d at 376-77 ("When the language of a constitutional amendment is of doubtfu......
-
McLure v. McElroy
...precedent. Lucas v. City of Florence, 103 S.C. 169, 87 S.E. 996; Robinson v. Askew, 129 S.C. 188, 123 S.E. 822; Covington v. McInnis, 144 S.C. 391, 142 S.E. 650; Brailsford v. Walker, 205 S.C. 31 S.E.2d 385. Implicit now in the constitution, perforce the amendment, is authorization for the ......