Fleming v. Royall

• Citation: 143 S.E. 162
• Decision Date: 16 April 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 12430.)
• Parties: FLEMING . v. ROYALL et al. MORRISON . v. MORRISON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

143 S.E. 162

FLEMING .
v.
ROYALL et al.
MORRISON .
v.
MORRISON et al.

(No. 12430.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 16, 1928.

[143 S.E. 163]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Wm. H. Grimball, Judge.

Separate actions by Frank P. Fleming against R. V. Royall and others, members of Christ Church Parish Commission, and by R. L. Morrison against J. B. Morrison and others members of St. James Santee Commission of Charleston County, which two cases were tried together by agreement. Judgments for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The decree of the circuit judge directed to be reported was as follows:

The two cases above entitled were, by agreement of counsel, heard before me, and it was agreed that one decree should be rendered covering all points at issue as raised by the petitions and answers filed herein. A hearing was first had upon the original petitions and answers filed and a tentative decree was reached, but, upon request of counsel for petitioners, the decree was held in abeyance pending filing of the amended petitions. This decree is intended to, and does, cover each and every issue made by the original petitions and answers filed herein and the issues raised by the amended petitions and amended answers filed in these cases; this being the final decree in this cause.

The petition in the first proceeding is by a taxpayer and freeholder in the township of Christ Church Parish, Charleston county, S. C, seeking to enjoin and restrain the defendants as members of Christ Church Parish commission, a body authorized and empowered to act under and pursuant to the terms of two certain acts of the General Assembly of South Carolina, one approved the 8th day of February, A. D. 1923 (33 St. at Large, p. 564), and the other approved the 19th day of March, A. D. 1925 (34 St. at Large, p. 662); the latter being an amendatory act, from issuing or delivering bonds of said township as authorized by the two acts mentioned.

In the second proceeding above mentioned, the suit is by a taxpayer and freeholder of St. James Santee township in the county of Charleston against the members of St. James Santee commission, a body authorized and empowered to act under and pursuant to the terms of a certain act of the General Assembly of South Carolina, approved the 25th day of March, 1927 (35 St. at Large, p. 767), seeking in said proceeding to enjoin and restrain the said commission from issuing or delivering any bonds of said township under or by virtue of the terms of the said last mentioned act.

The primary questions involved in both cases are the same, and will be considered together. There is, however, an additional objection set forth in the petition involving the bonds of the township of Christ Church Parish which I will consider separately in this decree.

The joint resolutions referred to in both cases cover proposed amendments to sections 5 and 6 of article 10 of the Constitution of 1895, but the plaintiffs in the cases above entitled allege that the commissions in each of these townships have no right to act under the provisions of the acts of the General Assembly referred to above, because said joint resolutions were not passed in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1895, and therefore, even though such amendments were voted on by the people of the state and duly passed, and even though the bonds proposed to be issued pursuant to the terms of the acts of the General Assembly hereinabove mentioned have been passed by an election held in said townships, by almost a unanimous vote, that all proceedings and elections are void because of the alleged failure of said original joint resolutions to be passed by the General Assembly in accordance with section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1895; other objections are also set up in the petitions herein.

In the petition regarding bonds of Christ Church township, and from the statutes of South Carolina as published, it appears that the joint resolution in reference to the bonds of the township of Christ Church Parish was passed by the General Assembly of South Carolina in the year 1922, and approved on March 11, 1922 (32 St. at Large, p. 1344). In the St, James Santee township case it would appear from the evidence presented and the statutes of South Carolina that the joint resolution in question was passed by the General Assembly of South Carolina in 1925 and approved the 4th day of April, A. D. 1925 (34 St. at Large, p. 613).

[143 S.E. 164]

As alleged objections to the proper passage of such joint resolutions, the complaint in both cases sets forth in substance the following allegations:

(a) The form of said joint resolution fails to comply with the requirement of section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution that "every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." The said joint resolution relates to two subjects, in that it attempts, firstly, to amend section 5 of article 10, of the Constitution, which limits the amount of the bonded debt of townships, so as to make such limitation inapplicable to this bond issue, and attempts, secondly, to amend section 0 of article 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits the issuance of township bonds or the levying of township taxes, except for certain purposes, so as to authorize these bonds to be issued for a purpose prohibited by section 6, to wit, the erection and maintenance of a railroad. Moreover, the subject of the joint resolution is not fully expressed in the title of the resolution. The title described the joint resolution as a resolution to amend certain sections of the Constitution "relating to the limit of the bonded debt of townships, " whereas one of the sections sought to be amended, namely, section 6 of article 10, does not relate to the limit of bonded debt of townships, but relates to the purposes for which township bonds may be issued and township taxes levied; so that any one reading the title of the joint resolution would suppose that the resolution related only to the limit placed by the Constitution upon the amount of the bonded debt of townships. The title of said joint resolution is therefore misleading and deceptive, as well as incomplete.

(b) The form of ballot set forth in said joint resolution approved the 4th day of April, A. D. 1925, and hereinbefore fully set out, is also misleading and deceptive, in that it described the said joint resolution as a resolution to amend certain sections of the Constitution relating to the limit of bonded indebtedness of townships, and failed to specify that one of the purposes of the proposed amendment was to authorize the issuance of township bonds for the erection and maintenance of a railroad.

The respondents by their separate answers admit that they are members of Christ Church Parish commission and St. James Santee commission, respectively, and acting as such under commissions issued by the Governor of the state of South Carolina, under and pursuant to the terms of the acts hereinbefore mentioned, and allege that the joint resolutions hereinabove mentioned were duly passed by the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina in the form and manner set forth in said petitions, but that they specifically deny each and every allegation of the said petitions which seek to declare the joint resolutions null and void; and would further show to the court that they are advised and believe that the joint resolutions were passed in accordance with the requirements of the. Constitution of this state, and that the bond elections in the several parishes were duly authorized by acts of the General Assembly, and that the said elections were overwhelmingly passed by the qualified electors of the respective townships. All material allegations of the complaints are denied.

The respondents further show to the court that a railroad is much needed through these townships, and that only by the aid and help to be rendered by the said townships can such railroad facilities be obtained, and further that these respondents have entered into a contract for the purpose of constructing the said railroad.

After full hearing, I am convinced that none of the objections raised by the plaintiff in each of the cases mentioned can be sustaned, and the complaints must therefore be dismissed.

Section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1895 provides: "Every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

The question of whether certain acts passed by the General Assembly of South Carolina refer to more than one subject than is expressed in the title thereof has been before the Supreme Court of this state on many occasions, and, as will be seen by the citations hereinafter mentioned, that court has given a broad and liberal construction to said section so as not to embarrass or defeat legislation, and thereby unnecessarily compelling separate enactments on every phase of the general subject.

In Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) p. 205, the following is found: "The general purpose of these provisions is accomplished when a law has but one general object, which is fairly indicated by its title. To require every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of this general object to. be provided for by a separate act relating to that alone, would not only be unreasonable, but would actually render legislation impossible."

Further: "There has been a general disposition to construe the constitutional provisions liberally, rather than to embarrass legislation by a construction whose strictness is unnecessary to the accomplishment of the beneficial purposes for which it has been adopted."

The joint resolutions under consideration relate to but one subject, namely, the issuance of township bonds. The fact that each joint resolution amended two different sections of the...