Miller v. Farr, No. 18138

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOSS; TAYLOR
Citation133 S.E.2d 838,243 S.C. 342
PartiesC. F. MILLER, Appellant, v. Harry B. FARR, Ex-Officio Chairman and Superintendent of Education et al., Respondents.
Decision Date10 December 1963
Docket NumberNo. 18138

Page 838

133 S.E.2d 838
243 S.C. 342
C. F. MILLER, Appellant,
v.
Harry B. FARR, Ex-Officio Chairman and Superintendent of
Education et al., Respondents.
No. 18138.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 10, 1963.

Page 839

[243 S.C. 343] Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for appellant.

James W. Workman, Union, for respondents.

MOSS, Justice.

This action is one under the 'Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act', Sections 10-2001 et seq., 1962 Code of Laws. It was instituted by C. F. Miller, a resident taxpayer and qualified elector of Union Township, which said Township is located within a former school district of Union County, known as Union School District No. 11. The purpose of the action is to determine the constitutionality of an authorization granted to the County Board of Education of Union County to issue Two Hundred Thousand Dollars [243 S.C. 344] of General Obligation Bonds of the School District of Union County pursuant to Act No. 667, 53 Stat. 1497, of the Acts of the General Assembly for the year 1963. This statute does not require that the question of issuing the bonds be submitted to the qualified electors of the said school district, and the appellant contends that the failure of the Act to require the submission of the question renders it violative of the provisions of an amendment to Section 5(50) of Article X of the 1895 Constitution of South Carolina, which is applicable to Union School District No. 11, such district being a part of what is now the School District of Union County.

The challenged legislation authorizes those respondents who constitute the County Board of Education of Union County, as the agency responsible for planning and constructing new facilities for the School District of Union County, to issue and sell Two Hundred Thousands Dollars of bonds of the School District of Union County for the purpose of raising moneys to construct, equip and repair public school facilities for the school district. This Act does not require that the question of the issuance of the bonds be submitted to the qualified electors and, as authorized, the respondent County Board adopted a resolution directing

Page 840

the issuance and sale of the bonds permitted by the said Act.

It is not disputed that as a general rule there is no constitutional provision requiring that bonds issued by School Districts in South Carolina receive voter approval prior to their issuance. Lillard v. Melton, 103 S.C. 10, 87 S.E. 421; Powell v. Hargrove, 136 S.C. 345, 134 S.E. 380. Nor is it disputed that special legislative enactments are appropriate vehicles by which the General Assembly may authorize School Districts in South Carolina to issue bonds. State ex rel. Milford v. Brock, 66 S.C. 357, 44 S.E. 931; Burris v. Brock, 95 S.C. 104, 79 S.E. 193; Brownlee v. Brock, 107 S.C. 230, 92 S.E. 477.

[243 S.C. 345] Contending, however, that the question was controlled by the provisions of an amendment to Section 5(50) of Article X ratified as of February 19, 1947, this action was instituted for the purpose of having a declaratory judgment rendered declaring Act No. 667, 53 Stats. 1497, unconstitutional. The amendment, whose interpretation is required in the disposition of this appeal, reads as follows:

'Provided, that the limitations imposed by this Section shall not apply to Union School District No. 11, Union County, South Carolina, such school district being hereby expressly authorized to issue bonds to an amount not to exceed twenty (20) per centum of the value of all taxable property in the territory embraced in said school district, as valued or assessed for taxation by the state, the proceeds of such bonds to be applied solely to the erection, equipment and maintenance of schools and school buildings in said district, and the purchase of grounds, under such restrictions and limitations as the General Assembly may prescribe, and where the question of incurring such indebtedness is to be submitted to the qualified electors of said school district, as provided in the Constitution, upon the question of bonded indebtedness.'

Prior to the enactment by the General Assembly of Act No. 854 in 1952, 47 Stats. 2104, now codified with amendments as Sections 21-4151 et seq., Code of 1962, Union County had been divided into a number of school districts, one of which was known as Union School District No. 11. By the aforesaid Act of 1952, all of the then existing school districts of Union County were consolidated into a single school district. By amendment the territorial unit resulting from the consolidation of the then existing school districts has now been designated as 'The School District of Union County' and is a single school district which purports to have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Stackhouse v. Floyd, No. 18534
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1966
    ...have been existing at the time the amendment was adopted. On the contrary it has recently been established in the case of Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 133 S.E.2d 838, that the General Assembly can, in effect, repeal an amendment which relates to the debt limitation of a particular school d......
  • City of Rock Hill v. Harris, No. 26917.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 24, 2011
    ...is guided by the principle that both the citizenry and the General Assembly have worked to create the governing law. See Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 133 S.E.2d 838, 841 (1963) (stating that the Court's efforts in construing the South [705 S.E.2d 55] Carolina Constitution are aimed at asse......
  • State ex rel. McLeod v. Edwards, No. 20463
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 12, 1977
    ...in such fashion as to override the prior decisions of this Court construing the language as permitting such membership. Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 133 S.E.2d It is a well established rule that "framers of a new Constitution who adopt provisions contained in a former Constitution to which......
  • State v. Long, No. 27347.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 8, 2014
    ...is guided by the principle that both the citizenry and the General Assembly have worked to create the governing law. See Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 346, 133 S.E.2d 838, 841 (1963) (noting that the Constitution is construed in light of the intent of its framers and the people who adopted ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Stackhouse v. Floyd, No. 18534
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1966
    ...have been existing at the time the amendment was adopted. On the contrary it has recently been established in the case of Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 133 S.E.2d 838, that the General Assembly can, in effect, repeal an amendment which relates to the debt limitation of a particular school d......
  • City of Rock Hill v. Harris, No. 26917.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 24, 2011
    ...is guided by the principle that both the citizenry and the General Assembly have worked to create the governing law. See Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 133 S.E.2d 838, 841 (1963) (stating that the Court's efforts in construing the South [705 S.E.2d 55] Carolina Constitution are aimed at asse......
  • State ex rel. McLeod v. Edwards, No. 20463
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 12, 1977
    ...in such fashion as to override the prior decisions of this Court construing the language as permitting such membership. Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 133 S.E.2d It is a well established rule that "framers of a new Constitution who adopt provisions contained in a former Constitution to which......
  • State v. Long, No. 27347.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 8, 2014
    ...is guided by the principle that both the citizenry and the General Assembly have worked to create the governing law. See Miller v. Farr, 243 S.C. 342, 346, 133 S.E.2d 838, 841 (1963) (noting that the Constitution is construed in light of the intent of its framers and the people who adopted ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT