Hollingsworth v. City of Greenville
| Decision Date | 10 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 18002,18002 |
| Parties | John D.HOLLINGSWORTH, Ella B. Hollingsworth, R. M. Willis and Grace K. Willis, and others similarly situated, Appellants, v. The CITY OF GREENVILLE, South Carolina, David G. Traxler, Mayor of the City of Greenville, James H. Simkins, John P. Mann, Dr. W. Thomas Brockman, Dr. Thomas Parker, Gus Smith and Mrs. Alden Simpson, City Aldermen, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Sol E. Abrams, Greenville, for appellants.
W. H. Arnold, Clifford F. Gaddy, Jr., Greenville, for respondents.
Appellants, seeking to enjoin the inclusion of their land in territory annexed to the City of Greenville, appeal from an adverse circuit decree.
In August, 1961, there was filed with the City Council of Greenville, a petition signed by a majority of the freeholders of a large territory lying to the east and south of the city limits, praying that an election be ordered to see if such territory should be annexed to the city. On July 25, 1961, appellants, owners of a strip of land bisecting, from north to south, the territory so proposed to be annexed, wrote to the mayor advising that they did not wish their land annexed, did not wish to have the petition for annexation circulated in that area, and had instructed their counsel by legal action if necessary to have said area removed from consideration in either the petition for annexation or any election that might follow on the question of annexation; and they requested that their counsel be permitted to appear and present their position. Their request not having been acceded to, on September 15 they brought this action, seeking to enjoin the annexation of their land. On September 19 the election was held and resulted in favor of the annexation of the proposed territory.
The gist of appellants' complaint is that their property is largely unimproved farm land, without streets or roads; that it has no need of municipal police or fire protection, there having been no crimes or fires in that area for many years; that it is lower in elevation than the rest of the territory sought to be annexed; that its annexation would not benefit either the city or them; and that its inclusion in the territory proposed to be annexed is therefore unreasonable and arbitrary.
The cause came on to be heard before the Honorable Edwin W. Johnson, Special Judge, who after having considered the evidence and viewed the area in question concluded that appellants had failed to sustain the burden of proving that the inclusion of their land was unreasonable or arbitrary; and by his decree of March 30, 1962, he denied the injunction and dismissed the complaint.
Our annexation statute, Code 1952, Title 47, Chapter 1, Article 2, requires:
1. That there be first submitted to the city or town council a petition by a majority of the freeholders of the territory proposed for annexation, accompanied by an adequate description of such territory, and praying that an election be ordered to see if it shall be included in the city or town;
2. That if the city or town council shall find that the petition has been signed by a majority of the freeholders within the territory proposed to be annexed, it shall certify that fact to the county commissioners of elections of the county in which the territory is situated;
3. That thereupon the county commissioners of elections shall order an election to be held within the corporate limits of the municipality and within the territory proposed to be annexed, such election to be held in both areas on the same date and after at least ten days'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinckney v. City of Beaufort
...(1950). Absent arbitrariness, the courts will ordinarily decline to pass upon the wisdom of an annexation. Hollingsworth v. City of Greenville, 241 S.C. 378, 128 S.E.2d 704 (1962); Bellamy v. Johnson, 234 S.C. 172, 107 S.E.2d 33 (1959). Appellants do not argue the annexation was AFFIRMED. G......
-
Dalton v. Town Council of Mt. Pleasant
...Under the terms of the applicable statutes (Section 47-12, et seq., recently summarized by this Court in Hollingsworth v. The City of Greenville, S.C., 128 S.E.2d 704, filed December 10, 1962.) this action would have resulted in three separate elections to determine the question of annexati......
-
Bryant v. City of Charleston, 22845
...of land to a municipal corporation is a legislative function with which the courts rarely interfere. Hollingsworth v. City of Greenville, 241 S.C. 378, 128 S.E.2d 704 (1962); see also Elmwood Construction Co. v. Richards, 265 S.C. 228, 217 S.E.2d 769 (1975) (proceedings resulting in annexat......
-
Elwood Constr. Co. v. Richards, 20080
...264, approved the 24th day of May, 1963. On December 10, 1962 there had been filed in this Court the opinion in Hollingsworth v. City of Greenville, 241 S.C. 378, 128 S.E.2d 704. Therein it was held, inter alia, that the fact that a tract of land, included within a municipal annexation, was......