Graham v. Erwin

• Decision Date: 28 June 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 10457.)
• Citation: 103 S.E. 750
• Parties: GRAHAM. v. ERWIN, County Supervisor, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

103 S.E. 750

GRAHAM.

v.ERWIN, County Supervisor, et al.

(No. 10457.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 28, 1920.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; S. W. G. Shipp, Judge.

Suit by R. M. Graham against A. L. Erwin, as County Supervisor, and others, to enjoin a county bond issue. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The report of the master and the decree below were as follows:

"Master's Report.

"This matter comes before me upon the complaint of the plaintiff and answer of the defendant under an order to me directed by his houor, Circuit Judge S. W. G. Shipp. The issues of both fact and law, as made by the complaint and answer, are sharp and well defined. I have held a reference at which considerable testimony was adduced, and after giving the same careful consideration I beg leave to submit this, my report, thereon:

"(1) The plaintiff in his complaint alleges that he is a citizen and taxpayer of the county of Florence, and this the defendant admits. There can be no doubt about that and no question is made thereabout. The plaintiff, as such, has a status which entitles him to maintain this action for himself and any and all other taxpayers of the county of Florence who will come in and share with him the expenses of this litigation.

"(2) The plaintiff alleges that the defendants named are acting as the commission created by the act of the Assembly which is brought in question in this case, and that allegation is admitted by the defendants.

"(3) The plaintiff attaches to the complaint a copy of the act in question, and while the defendants admit that the copy attached to the complaint, so far as it goes, is correct, they tender and proffer to the court as a part of their answer a certified copy of the act attested by the Secretary of State under the great seal thereof.

"(4) The plaintiff alleges that the act is violative of section 17, art. 3, of the Constitution of South Carolina 1895, and cites the act in support thereof. The defendants deny this allegation, and thus a question of law is raised for determination. The constitutional provision in question is correctly set forth in the complaint as follows: 'Every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'

"After a careful study of the act in question under the rule that this provision of the Constitution should have a liberal construction, I am of opinion that the act is not violative of this provision of the general subject as expressed in the title, and all of the details of legislation therein contained are intended to and do provide the means, methods, and instrumentalities which are intended to facilitate the accomplishment of the general purpose and are germane to it. State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 449. 54 S. E. 607; Aycock-Little Co. v. Railway, 76 S. C. 331, 57 S. E. 27; Johnson v. Commissioners, 97 S. C. 205, 81 S. E. 502; Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421.

"(5) The plaintiff alleges that the act is unconstitutional for that the issue of $800,000 of bonds thereunder would exceed the constitutional limit and violate section 5 of article 10 thereof, This allegation the defendants deny, and thus there is presented a question of fact for determination.

"The relevant portion of section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution is as follows:

" 'The corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns and villages may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes. * * * The bonded debt of any county, township, school district, municipal corporation or political division or subdivision of this state shall never exceed S per centum of the assessed value of all the taxable property therein. And no county, township, municipal corporation orother political division of this state shall hereafter be authorized to increase its bonded indebtedness if at the time of any proposed increase thereof the aggregate amount of its already existing bonded debt amounts to 8 per centum of the value of all taxable property therein as valued for state taxation. And wherever there shall be several political divisions or municipal corporations covering or extending over the territory, or portions thereof, possessing a power to levy a tax or contract a debt, then each of such political divisions or municipal corporations shall so exercise its power to increase its debt under the foregoing 8 per cent. limitation that the aggregate debt over and upon any territory of this state shall never exceed 15 per centum of the value of all taxable property in such territory as valued for taxation by the state.'

"The evidence shows that the value of the property subject to taxation in Florence county as assessed for state taxation is $12,842, 332, of which 15 per cent. is $1,920, 348. The testimony shows that the total indebtedness of the city of Florence, which for this purpose we will include, is $330,000; that the present indebtedness of the county of Florence is $35,-000; that the total indebtedness of all school districts within the county of Florence is $391,-171; that the town of Lake City is bonded for less than $100,000, and the town of Timmonsville for less than $100,000, to which add the contemplated issue of $800,000 for permanent road improvement as contemplated by the act, and we have a total of only $1,756, 171, and, even including the bonded indebtedness of the city of Florence in the total last given, we still have a margin of $175,177 below the 15 per cent. limitation which the plaintiff claims that this issue will exceed.

"In arriving at this total the testimony is conclusive to the effect that the city of Florence, county of Florence, and school district bond issues are correct. The $200,000 apportioned to Lake City and Timmonsville are well above the amounts of the bonded indebtedness of these two towns. The testimony is also conclusive that there are no other bonded debts on any political or governmental subdivisions or divisions of the county. These facts being established by the testimony, the issue of this point must be decided against the plaintiff.

"(6) The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the issue of $800,000 of bonds by the Florence highway commission under the act in this case would violate the provisions of section 5 of articlei 10, which directs that wherever there shall be several political divisions or municipal corporations covering or extending over the territory or boundary thereof possessing the power to levy a tax or contract a debt, then each of such political divisions or municipal corporations shall so exercise this power to increase its debt under the foregoing 8 per cent. limitation that the aggregate debt over and upon any territory of this state shall never exceed 15 per centum of the value of all taxable property in such territory as valued for taxation by the state, as applied to the city of Florence, and to the Florence city school district, reckoned in connection with the proportionate share of the county debt that will be apportioned against such area. The argument is that the city debt of $330,000, plus $295,000 for school district, plus approximately one-fourth of the county indebtedness, or $200,-000, will exceed 15 per centum, as it will aggregate $825,000. However, the fact will not, I believe, sustain the contention of plaintiff, which is denied by the defendants, and thus another question of fact, mixed with law, is presented for discussion.

"The testimony establishes the fact that the city property as valued for state taxation amounts to $3,223, 943, and it is true that upon this property the ' city has issued bonds amounting to $330,000; but it appears in the testimony that this indebtedness was incurred for waterworks, sewerage, street improvements, and refunding debts incurred.

"In this connection section 7 of article 8 and section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution, as applied to the city of Florence, were amended by an act to ratify the amendment, approved the 8th of March, 1919 (31 Statutes at Large, p. 74), which act provides that the limitations imposed by this section and by section 5 of article 10 shall not apply to the bonded indebtedness incurred by the city * * * of Florence, in the county of Florence, when the proceeds of any bonds issued by any such cities are applied exclusively to the purchase, erection, improvement, and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, waterworks, lighting plants, gas plants, sewerage system, or for the payment of debts incurred, and when the question of incurring said indebtedness is submitted to the qualified electors of said municipalities, as provided by law. I find as matter of fact from the evidence that all of the bonded indebtedness of the city of Florence now existing falls within one or more of the terms and conditions of that amendment, and under the authority of Brown-lee v. Brock et al., 107 S. C. 230, 92 S. E. 477, that the city bonded debt shall be excluded in computing the amount of the bonded indebtedness covering this area.

"This conclusion is fully supported by the cases of Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421; Secgers v. Gibbes, 72 S. C. 532, 52 S. E. 586; Bethea v. Dillon, 91 S. C. 413, 74 S. E. 983; in addition to Brownlee v. Brock, supra. Therefore, in testing the contention of plaintiff we must exclude from consideration the bonded debt of the city.

"It is fully established by the testimony that the Florence city school district is not coterminous with the city proper, but overlaps the same, and comprises within its boundaries approximately 12 square miles outside of the city of Florence; that the value of the property in the school district is $654,159 more than the amount of the city property, or a total for the school district of $3,878, 102. Therefore, excluding the city debt and basing the calculation upon the taxable value of the school district property as assessed for state...