Green v. Thornton, 20108
| Decision Date | 17 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 20108,20108 |
| Citation | 219 S.E.2d 827,265 S.C. 436 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frank X. GREEN, Respondent, v. O. Frank THORNTON, Secretary of State, and C. E. Krampf, of whom C. E. Krampfis, Appellant. |
Burroughs, Green, Sasser & Hudson, Conway, for appellant.
Stevens, Stevens & Thomas, Loris, for respondent.
Frank Green and other residents of Briarcliffe Acres subdivision petitioned the Secretary of State for a commission for an election on the question of incorporation of Briarcliffe Acres. The area proposed to be incorporated lies between the corporate limits of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach. The Secretary of State denied the petition.
Green, the respondent, sought summary judgment and a writ of mandamus from the circuit court requiring the Secretary to issue the commission, and joined C. E. Krampf, who opposed issuance of the commission, as a co-defendant. The circuit judge granted summary judgment and issued the writ ordering issuance of the commission. Krampf appeals from this order. We affirm.
South Carolina Code Section 47--101 requires the petition be 'signed by fifty freehold electors thereof, who are freeholders in the precinct in which the proposed town is located . . .' If the petition satisfies this section, the Secretary of State 'shall then issue' the commission. South Carolina Code Section 47--102.
Respondent's petition satisfied the statutory requirements. It stated, 'We, the below set forth freehold electors residing in the community of Briarcliffe Acres . . .' and contained more than fifty signatures.
Appellant contends Section 47--101 requires the signers of the petition be registered to vote in the precinct in which the proposed town is situate. The circuit judge rejected this argument. He observed precincts in South Carolina are of two varieties. In some counties precincts are polling or voting places of convenience; they are not delineated by geographic boundaries. In other counties precincts are defined by distinct geographical boundaries; they subdivide the county much like school districts.
The precincts in Horry County are designated in the older manner of naming polling places of convenience. They are not designated by geographic boundaries. South Carolina Code Section 23--179 (1974 Cum.Supp.) In a preliminary order the circuit court concluded: 'Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend how such a requirement (as urged by Krampf) could be reasonably imposed in a county such as Horry where the boundaries of precincts are exceedingly unclear.' We agree with this reasoning.
The purpose of issuing a commission is to provide for an election of the question of incorporation. In the election 'all registered electors living in the area sought to be incorporated' may vote. South Carolina Code Section 47--102. Thus, the legislature intended to grant the right to vote on incorporation to those electors residing in the proposed town. It would be illogical for them not to be able to cause a commission to issue for the election.
In construing these statutes, our purpose is to ascertain the legislative intent. State ex rel. Crawford v. Stevens, 173 S.C. 149, 175 S.E. 213 (1934); Creamer v. City of Anderson, 240 S.C. 118, 128, 124 S.E.2d 788 (1962). If the legislature had intended the signers of the petition be registered to vote in the precinct to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck v. Town of Yarmouth
...a vote or an election (notwithstanding in some instances mention of the state or the people in the caption) See Green v. Thornton, 265 S.C. 436, 219 S.E.2d 827 (1975); People ex rel. Killeen v. Kankakee School Dist. No. 11, 48 Ill.2d 419, 270 N.E.2d 36, 39 (1971); Gibson v. Winterset Commun......
-
Scholtec v. Estate of Reeves, 2704
...must follow is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intention or purpose as expressed in the statute. Green v. Thornton, 265 S.C. 436, 219 S.E.2d 827 (1975); Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n. Inc. v. South Carolina Employment Sec. Comm'n, 284 S.C. 302, 326 S.E.2d 165 (Ct.App.198......
-
Kalk v. Thornton
...holding of the incorporation election. Appellants to the case now before the Court appealed Judge Agnew's order. In Green v. Thornton, 265 S.C. 436, 219 S.E.2d 827 (1975), this Court affirmed the issuance of the writ of On February 17, 1976, the incorporation election was held and the incor......
-
Mullinax v. J.M. Brown Amusement Co., Inc.
...must follow is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intention or purpose as expressed in the statute. Green v. Thornton, 265 S.C. 436, 219 S.E.2d 827 (1975). Unless there is something in a statute requiring a different interpretation, the words used in the statute must be given......