Freeman v. Holliday, J3399.

• Citation: 164 S.E. 20
• Decision Date: 03 May 1932
• Docket Number: No. J3399.,J3399.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: FREEMAN. v. HOLLIDAY.

164 S.E. 20

FREEMAN.

v.HOLLIDAY.

No. J3399.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 3, 1932.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Horry County; M. M. Mann, Judge.

Action by W. A. Freeman, as receiver of the Bank of Aynor, against George J. Holliday. From the judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed and remanded.

Samuel Want and Melvin Hyman, both of Darlington, for appellant.

M. A. Wright, C. B. Thomas, and E. J. Sherwood, all of Conway, for respondent.

STABLER, J.

Under the authority of an act passed in 19i«l (36 St. at Large, p. 199), this action was brought by the plaintiff, as receiver of the Bank of Aynor, a closed banking institution, for the purpose of collecting from the defendant his statutory liability as a stockholder. It Is alleged in the complaint that the defendant, at the time the bank suspended business, was the owner of 393 shares of its stock of the par value of $25 each, and that he was liable therefor to the plaintiff, as receiver, in the sum of $9, S00, which amount he had failed and refused to pay. The appeal is from an order of his honor, Judge Mann, overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint and directing "that the cause proceed to judgment."

The appellant submits, as the main question presented for our consideration, that the circuit judge committed error in refusing to hold that section 6 of the act violates section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution, "in that (a) the act incorporating said section contains more than one subject and that (b) the title of the said act does not express or refer to the subject matter of section 6 thereof."

The title of the act in question reads as follows: "An Act to Provide the Manner in Which Receivers of Closed Banks are to be Chosen, to Further Extend Their Powers, to Prescribe Their Remuneration and the Remuneration of their Attorneys Therefor, and to Require Annual Audits Thereof."

Section 6 provides: "That any receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of any closed State bank shall, under the authority of this Act, when it is necessary to collect the liability of stockholders, have full power and authority to demand of such stockholders the statutory liability, provided for in Section 3998, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1922, and upon failure of any stockholder to pay into his hands such liability, he is herebyinvested with full power and authority to bring suit, either individually or collectively, against such stockholder, or stockholders, for the collection of such liability, and all funds received from said assessment by payment with or without suit shall be kept as a separate fund to be paid to the depositors solely. Said receiver shall receive as compensation for the collection of the stockholders' liability, two and one-half (2¹/₂) per cent and in case same is placed in the hands of the attorney for collection by suit, or otherwise, an additional five per cent may be paid to the attorney for his services, or so much as the Court may decide the attorney is entitled to."

This court has had occasion several times recently to construe section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that "every Act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, " and we do not deem it necessary to repeat here the rules of construction laid down in these several decided cases. See Alley v. Daniel, 153 S. C. 217, 150 S. E. 691; Becknell v. Waters, 156 S. C. 77, 152 S. E. S16.

As stated,...