Daniel v. Conestee Mills

• Decision Date: 19 April 1937
• Docket Number: 14469.
• Parties: DANIEL, Atty. Gen., et al. v. CONESTEE MILLS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

191 S.E. 76

183 S.C. 337

DANIEL, Atty. Gen., et al. v. CONESTEE MILLS.

No. 14469.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 19, 1937

Action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by John M Daniel, as Attorney General of South Carolina, and others against the Conestee Mills to determine the constitutionality of the South Carolina Unemployment Act, wherein the defendant demurred to the plaintiffs' complaint.

Complaint dismissed.

John M Daniel, Atty. Gen., J. Ivey Humphrey and M. J. Hough, Asst Attys. Gen., and Robinson & Robinson, of Columbia, and Henry R. Sims, of Orangeburg, for plaintiffs.

B. F Martin, of Greenville, for defendant.

BAKER Justice.

This case is before the court on a rule to show cause issued ex parte by Honorable John G. Stabler, Chief Justice, wherein plaintiffs were granted permission to institute this action in the original jurisdiction of this court. The preamble of the order, prepared by counsel for plaintiffs (as are all ex parte orders), is as follows:

"It appearing from the attached complaint that it is of prime importance to the State of South Carolina that the constitutionality of South Carolina Unemployment Act of 1936 be promptly determined, and it appearing that the issues raised by the complaint herein will properly present these issues to the Court, it is

Ordered and adjudged * * *"

A synopsis of the complaint is as follows: (1) That John M. Daniel is the duty elected and qualified Attorney General of South Carolina, and is authorized to bring suit in the name of the state and to represent the state; that the other plaintiffs constitute the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Commission, and are charged with the duty of enforcing the "South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Law;" (2) that the defendant is a corporation under the laws of the state of South Carolina, and is engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods, with its place of business within the state; (3) that the General Assembly in 1936 passed an act, approved by the Governor June 6, 1936 (Act No. 946, 39 St. at Large, p. 1716, Acts of 1936), entitled "An Act to Provide a System of Unemployment Compensation in the State of South Carolina," and said act is made a part of the complaint; (4) that the defendant employs a great many laborers and other classes of employees, who are eligible to become beneficiaries of the said act, and that defendant is subject to its terms and comes within the class of employers who are required to make contributions, reports, and do all other things necessary to carry out its provisions and objectives; (5) that defendant has been notified that the contributions required of it, under the terms of the act, amount to $1,574.06, and were due and payable, and payment demanded, but defendant has refused to pay any portion thereof, or furnish the information required of it by the act, and has instituted a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina against plaintiffs for the purpose of having said statute declared null and void, and had obtained a rule requiring plaintiffs to show cause before said court and for an order of injunction restraining plaintiffs from enforcing said statute, pending the hearing for a permanent injunction, and that said suit is now pending in the said court, and in said action in said court plaintiffs were temporarily restrained from collecting, or attempting to collect, and from enforcing by notice, suit, information, any tax, contribution, penalty, forfeitures of fines as will appear by reference to suit entitled Conestee Mills v. South Carolina Unemployment Commission et al. (6) that Conestee Mills in its complaint alleges: "8. * * * that the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act is null and void, in that it violates the provisions of both the State and Federal Constitutions, and alleges that the relationship between the South Carolina Act, the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Commission, and the Federal Social Security Act (Titles III and IX [sections 301 et seq., 901 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 501 et seq., 1101 et seq.]), are so interrelated that the constitutionality of the Federal Social Security Act is involved in this litigation and the complaint of the Conestee Mills alleges the unconstitutionality of Titles III and IX of the Federal Social Security Act"; and (7) that the defendant admits the correctness of the contribution due by it under the act, as claimed by plaintiffs, but has failed and refused to pay this contribution, and has indicated by reason of the action instituted in the United States District Court that it will not pay the same; and this action is brought for the purpose of collecting the contribution due by the defendant, and to enforce the statute hereinabove referred to, and to show cause by what authority it carries on its business without complying with the terms of the act.

The prayer of the complaint is as follows:

"(1) For an order directed to the defendant requiring it to comply with the terms of the South Carolina Unemployment Act;

(2) That this Court do require the defendant to make answer and return to this complaint, or to plead herein, and to show by such pleadings by what authority it refuses to pay the contributions and furnish the necessary information provided in the said Act and why it refuses to comply with its terms;

(3) That this Court do declare the Act of the South Carolina Legislature entitled 'An Act to Provide a System of Unemployment Compensation in the State of South Carolina' constitutional and valid, and if this Court finds that Titles III and IX of the Federal Social Security Act are involved in this proceeding this Court do declare such enactments of Congress valid;

(4) That pursuant to the provisions of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380, that this Court do by its order restrain the plaintiffs herein from attempting to collect the contribution from the defendant during the pendency of this suit, or until further order of this Court;

(5) For such other and further relief as plaintiffs may be entitled to in the premises."

The defendant demurred to the complaint on a multiplicity of grounds, but for the purpose of this decision, may be included in two: (1) That this court is without jurisdiction, in that the purpose of the action is to obtain a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act; and (2) no facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action have been alleged.

Following the service of the motion to dismiss the complaint, and the grounds of demurrer, plaintiffs gave notice of motion to amend their complaint in the following particulars, to wit: (1) By adding to paragraph 2 thereof, "That the defendant, as plaintiffs are informed and believe, holds from the State of South Carolina a charter under and by authority of which it carries on its business"; (2) by adding to the prayer of said complaint the following additional paragraphs: "(6) That the charter of the defendant be revoked" and "(7) That the defendant be enjoined, restrained and prohibited from carrying on its business, or any part thereof, under the charter now held by it without conforming to the provisions of the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act."

"The Demand for Relief in a complaint constitutes no part of the cause of action and cannot give character to it." Syllabus to McMakin v....