Gentry v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 28 July 1939
• Docket Number: 14926.
• Parties: GENTRY v. TAYLOR et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E.2d 857

192 S.C. 145

GENTRY v. TAYLOR et al.

No. 14926.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 28, 1939

Jennings L. Thompson, of Spartanburg, for petitioner.

Donald Russell, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a taxpayer's suit, brought by permission in the original jurisdiction of the Court, to enjoin the county board of Spartanburg County from issuing and selling county bonds pursuant to the terms of an act passed by the General Assembly at its 1938 session (40 Stat. at Large 2790).

The facts are not in dispute. The city of Spartanburg owns an airport located just without its corporate limits. The act authorizes the county board, subject to the approval thereof in advance by a majority of the qualified electors of the county, at an election to be held to determine such matter to issue and sell county bonds to aid in the enlargement of this airport, pledges the full faith and credit of the county as security for the payment of the bonds, with interest, as they mature, and directs that taxes sufficient for such payment be levied annually upon the taxable property in Spartanburg County. An election, as provided for, has been held, in which a majority of the electors voting favored bonds.

The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the act, and alleges that any bonds issued thereunder would be invalid and any taxes levied for their payment would be illegal, in that:

" (a) Said bonds and the tax to be levied therefor are not for any ordinary county purpose or for any other purpose for which the General Assembly is empowered to authorize any county to levy a tax or issue bonds under the provisions of Article 10, Section 6, of the State Constitution of 1895;

"(b) The Memorial Airport of Spartanburg, which is to be improved with the funds derived from said bonds and the tax to be levied therefor, in conjunction with an estimated expenditure of $41,000 to be furnished by the city of Spartanburg and $300,000 to be furnished by the United States Government, is a public airport located in Spartanburg County and owned by the city of Spartanburg and not by Spartanburg County, except in so far as the city of Spartanburg may be an integral part of the County of Spartanburg and the State of South Carolina;

"(c) Said bonds and the tax to be levied therefor are in violation of Article 10, Section 6, of the State Constitution of 1895; and

"(d) Said bonds and the tax to be levied therefor are not authorized by any other constitutional or legal authority."

The provision of the Constitution referred to is as follows "The General Assembly shall not have power to authorize any county or township to levy a tax or issue bonds for any purpose except for educational purposes, to build and repair public roads, buildings and bridges, to maintain and support prisoners, pay jurors, county officers, and for litigation, quarantine and court expenses, and for ordinary county purposes, to support paupers, and pay past indebtedness." Section 6 of Article X.

In reply to contentions (a) and (c) of the petitioner, the respondents say that the Legislature in its enactment of certain laws (39 Stat. at Large 447; 40 Stat. at Large 466) "has indicated in no uncertain terms its conviction that the expenditure of public funds in the construction of an airport is within those public purposes contemplated by Section 6, Article X, Constitution of 1895"; and that "the question of whether an act is for a public purpose is primarily one for the Legislature; and this court will not interfere unless the determination by that body is clearly wrong". Park v. Greenwood County, 174 S.C. 35, 176 S.E. 870, 872.

The mere fact, however, that a project is denominated by the Legislature as a "public purpose" is not within itself sufficient to cure the unconstitutionality of an act authorizing the issuance of bonds by a county for the promotion of such project. In the cases cited and relied on by the respondents, to which we will presently refer, the act under which bonds were proposed to be issued (38 Stat. at Large 411) did not pledge the full faith and credit of the county, or other borrower, for the payment thereof. The projects authorized by the act were self-liquidating, and the bonds sought to be issued, therefore, were held by this Court not to be debts in a constitutional sense.

In Poulnot v. Cantwell, 129 S.C. 171, 123 S.E. 651 Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution was invoked as a basis for the contention that a joint resolution of the General Assembly, authorizing the issuance of bonds and the levying of a tax by Charleston County for the construction of wharves and boats, and for the operation of a public ferry in that county, was unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Marion, who wrote the opinion of the Court, pointed out that due to the physical geography of the county, the territory of which is traversed by rivers, and divided or separated by bodies of water, expenditures of money for roads and bridges might be rendered partially or wholly ineffective if no provision should be made for ferries, either as a part of the county system of roads, or as a part of the "ordinary" expenses of the county. The effect of the decision was that a public ferry, due to the conditions named, was and is a part of the road system of Charleston County, and that the bonded...