Harmon v. Driggers

• Decision Date: 30 June 1921
• Docket Number: 10630.
• Citation: 107 S.E. 923,116 S.C. 238
• Parties: HARMON v. DRIGGERS ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

107 S.E. 923

116 S.C. 238

HARMON v. DRIGGERS ET AL.

No. 10630.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 30, 1921

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Berkeley County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.

Action by Reuben C. Harmon against J. J. Driggers and others individually and as trustees of School District No. 24 of Berkeley County. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed.

T. P Stoney and J. D. E. Meyer, both of Charleston, for appellants.

E. J Dennis, of Monk's Corner, and Wolfe & Berry, of Orangeburg, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The plaintiff, Reuben C. Harmon, conveyed to the defendants, Driggers, Brown, and J. H. Harmon, a half acre lot of land "for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a public school for white children only." This action is brought to prevent the defendants from using said lot for any other purpose. The complaint alleges:

4. "That said deed contains a proviso that such lot of land shall be used 'for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a public school for white children only.' "

5. "That, in violation thereof, the defendants have permitted, and continue to permit, the said premises and the buildings thereon to be used for other purposes than school purposes, to wit: For preaching and for divers other purposes."

This action is brought in behalf of himself and all others in like interest with himself, to enjoin the defendants from allowing the use of the property for other than holding of a public school. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and this appeal was taken.

There are several exceptions, but only one need be considered, as, that exception being sustained, the other questions are immaterial. The deed is referred to in the complaint, and is set forth in the case. It appears that, for a valuable consideration, the plaintiff conveyed to the defendants a lot of land "for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a public school for white children only." This action is brought on the theory that the word "only" refers to its use as a public school. It does not. The word "only" refers to white children. There is no allegation or intimation that the use in any other way interferes with the public school for white children. What the other uses are is not stated, and cannot be considered. Courts in a Christian...