Furman v. Willimon, (No. 9556.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWATTS
Citation90 S.E. 700
PartiesFURMAN et al., Courthouse Commission. v. WILLIMON, Supervisor of Greenville County.
Docket Number(No. 9556.)
Decision Date21 November 1916

(106 S.C. 159)
90 S.E. 700

FURMAN et al., Courthouse Commission.
v.
WILLIMON, Supervisor of Greenville County.

(No. 9556.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 21, 1916.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Ernest Moore, Judge.

Controversy submitted, without action, between A. G. Furman and others, constituting the Courthouse Commission of Greenville County, and W. H. Willimon, as Supervisor of Greenville County. From a judgment for petitioners, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

The following is the decree below:

This is a controversy submitted without action, under the Code. The case was filed in the Supreme Court, and by an order of that court has been committed to this court.

The facts, as they appear, are that by an act of March 6, 1915, the courthouse commission of Greenville county was established, with authority to make repairs upon the old courthouse or to erect a new one. It seems that the commission concluded that the money appropriated ($60,000) was insufficient to erect a new courthouse, and that it was impracticable to repair the old courthouse.

At the next session of the General Assembly an act was passed which was approved February 19, 1916, which purported to amend an act which had been approved on February 6, 1915, and which authorized the supervisor of Greenville county to issue bonds in the sum of $950,000, to be used for road purposes. The amendatory act reduces the road bonds to $900,000, and provides that bonds to the amount of $50,000 should be used for the erection of a new courthouse. This act further provides for the disposition of the bonds at not less than par. The only question in the case is whether the act of February 19, 1916, is in compliance with section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution, which declares that statutes shall relate to but one subject, which shall be expressed in the title.

The title to the amendatory act is as follows: "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to authorize and empower the supervisor of Greenville county to issue coupon bonds of said county in the sum of nine hundred and fifty thousand ($950,000.00) dollars, for the purpose of permanent road improvement in said county, and to provide for automobile licenses and a property tax to pay the same, ' approved February 26, 1915, so as to provide for the issue of fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars of bonds for the erection of a new courthouse in Greenville county."

The body of the act itself reduces the highway bond...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Miles Laboratories v. Seignious, No. 981.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • December 15, 1939
    ...71 S.E. 356; Verner v. Muller, 89 S.C. 117, 71 S.E. 654; Lillard v. Melton, 103 S.C. 10, 87 S.E. 421; Furman v. Willimon, 106 S.C. 159, 90 S.E. 700; Robinson v. City of Columbia, 116 S.C. 193, 107 S.E. 476; McKiever v. Sumter, 137 S.C. 266, 135 S.E. 60; Briggs v. Greenville County, 137 S.C.......
  • Dantzler v. Callison, No. 17200
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 20, 1956
    ...prevent deception of the public and to prevent insertion of matters not germane to the general subject. Furman v. Willimon, 106 S.C. 159, 90 S.E. 700; Miles Laboratories v. Seignious, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 549. This section is to be construed with great liberality. Gasque v. Nates, 191 S.C. 271,......
  • Walker v. Bennett, (No. 11283.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 26, 1923
    ...in the body of the act without violating article III, § 17, of the state Constitution." See, also, Furman v. Willimon, 105 S. C. 159, 90 S. E. 700; Brownlee v. Brock, 107 S. C. 230, 92 S. E. 477. As to the third objection: It is conceded, without going into the details of the[118 S.E. 781]f......
3 cases
  • Miles Laboratories v. Seignious, No. 981.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • December 15, 1939
    ...71 S.E. 356; Verner v. Muller, 89 S.C. 117, 71 S.E. 654; Lillard v. Melton, 103 S.C. 10, 87 S.E. 421; Furman v. Willimon, 106 S.C. 159, 90 S.E. 700; Robinson v. City of Columbia, 116 S.C. 193, 107 S.E. 476; McKiever v. Sumter, 137 S.C. 266, 135 S.E. 60; Briggs v. Greenville County, 137 S.C.......
  • Dantzler v. Callison, No. 17200
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 20, 1956
    ...prevent deception of the public and to prevent insertion of matters not germane to the general subject. Furman v. Willimon, 106 S.C. 159, 90 S.E. 700; Miles Laboratories v. Seignious, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 549. This section is to be construed with great liberality. Gasque v. Nates, 191 S.C. 271,......
  • Walker v. Bennett, (No. 11283.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 26, 1923
    ...in the body of the act without violating article III, § 17, of the state Constitution." See, also, Furman v. Willimon, 105 S. C. 159, 90 S. E. 700; Brownlee v. Brock, 107 S. C. 230, 92 S. E. 477. As to the third objection: It is conceded, without going into the details of the[118 S.E. 781]f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT