Moore v. Waters
| Decision Date | 31 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 12552. |
| Citation | 146 S.E. 92,148 S.C. 326 |
| Parties | MOORE et al. v. WATERS, County Superintendent of Education, et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; T. S Sease, Judge.
Mandamus by W. M. Moore and others, as citizens, freeholders taxpayers, and qualified registered electors of Inman School District No. 26 of Spartanburg County, S. C., in behalf of themselves and others, against John G. Waters, as County Superintendent of Education, and others, constituting the County Board of Education for Spartanburg County. From an order denying the writ, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Lyles Daniel & Drummond, of Spartanburg, for appellants.
Nicholls Wyche & Byrnes, of Spartanburg, for respondents.
At its 1928 session, the Legislature passed an act (35 St. at Large, p. 1293) relating to the election of school trustees in Spartanburg county. Section 2 is as follows:
"Upon the petition of one-third (1/3) of the qualified electors, and a like portion of the resident freeholders of any school district in Spartanburg county filed with the county superintendent of education on or before the first day of June, 1928, and every year thereafter when school trustees are to be appointed, the county board of education may order an election in such school district for trustees thereof, which shall be held by the board of trustees in office at the time, upon giving not less than two weeks notice of the time, place and object of said election, in a county newspaper, and by posting the same in at least three public places in said school district for not less than ten days before said election: Provided, however, in case where elections are not ordered the county board of education shall appoint the trustees."
On April 12, 1928, conforming to the provisions of the statute, the required number of qualified electors and resident freeholders of Inman school district No. 26 petitioned the county board of education for Spartanburg county to order an election in that district, for the purpose of electing a trustee for the term beginning June 30, 1928. The board refused to grant the petition, and this action was then brought by the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other signers of the petition, for a writ of mandamus to compel it to do so. The matter was heard by his honor, Judge Sease, who, in an order dated July 19, 1928, refused the writ, holding that the authority given to the county board of education to order elections for trustees was discretionary, and not mandatory. From this order the plaintiffs appeal and impute error.
The contention of the appellants is that the statute invoked being an election statute, confers upon the county board of education a power to be exercised by it for the benefit of the public, and is therefore, regardless of the words employed, mandatory in fact; that the words "may order an election," as used in the statute, are equivalent to "shall order an election"; and that to place upon the statute the construction contended for by the respondents would be to convict the two houses of the Legislature of conduct idle and absurd. The respondents,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulghum v. Bleakley
... ... "and" should read "or" (Robson v ... Cantwell, 143 S.C. 104, 141 S.E. 180, 181); that ... "may" is often construed "must" or ... "shall" (Moore v. Waters, 148 S.C. 326, 146 S.E ... 92); that "hereinafter" should read ... "hereinbefore" (Waring v. Cheraw & D. Railway Co., ... 16 S.C. 416); ... ...
- State v. Jeffcoat
-
Robertson v. State, 21459
...is to be interpreted as mandatory or permissive in a particular statute, legislative intent is controlling. Moore v. Waters, Supt., et al., 148 S.C. 326, 146 S.E. 92 (1928); see also 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § Section 34-11-90 was amended in 1979 to read as follows: "If the amount of the instru......
-
State v. Huntley
... ... act, the county board of education shall then appoint. They ... rely upon the case of Moore v. Waters, 148 S.C. 326, ... 146 S.E. 92, to sustain their position. That case, however, ... is not controlling here. By the express terms of the ... ...