Seegers v. Gibbes

• Decision Date: 17 October 1905
• Parties: SEEGERS v. GIBBES, Mayor, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

52 S.E. 586

72 S.C. 532

SEEGERS v. GIBBES, Mayor, et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 17, 1905

Petition for injunction by John C. Seegers against T. H. Gibbes mayor, and others, as aldermen of the city of Columbia. Denied.

The following is so much of the petition as states the material facts:

"(3) That the assessed value of all the taxable property of the city of Columbia for state taxation next preceding the filing of this petition, as appears from the books of the county auditor for Richland county, is $7,836,398.

(4) That the present bonded indebtedness of the city of Columbia is $925,548, composed as follows: Old bonded city debt, $850,548; waterworks bonds outstanding, $75,000 besides which and in addition thereto, there is now outstanding a contingent liability of the city of Columbia aggregating $162,000, being the unearned interest on $200,000 of canal bonds, the interest coupons of which were guarantied by the city under the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of this state of the 24th December, 1887 (19 St. at Large, p. 1097), which said act authorized and requires the levy of a sufficient tax to promptly pay the same, and which tax, together with the other taxes of the city shall not exceed 2 per cent. of the assessed value of the property of the city in any one year. That under the powers contained in the act to incorporate the board of trustees of the Columbia Canal, and for other purposes connected therewith (19 St. at Large, p. 1090) the said board issued $200,000 6 per cent. bonds (the coupons of which are guarantied by the city as aforesaid), and secured the same by a mortgage upon the said canal and appurtenances and the lands held therewith; and under the powers contained in the act amendatory thereto of December 24, 1890 (20 St. at Large p. 967) sold and conveyed the Columbia Canal before the same was completed to the Columbia Water Power Company, subject to all the contract liabilities and obligations made and entered into by the said board prior to such sale and transfer amongst which obligations was that of paying the interest coupons on said canal bonds promptly as they should mature, and the said water power company, in addition thereto and as security for the prompt payment of the said coupons, has deposited with the National Loan & Exchange Bank of the city of Columbia $18.000 West Shore Railroad Co. 4 per cent. gold bonds, maturing in the year 2361, guarantied by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., with interest coupons attached, payable semiannually.

(5) That the territory embraced within the city of Columbia is comprised within the territorial limits of Columbia township, a corporate political subdivision of this state, and the assessed value of all taxable property in Columbia township outside the limits of the city, as appears from the county duplicate of Richland county, is $2,375,479, making, together with the property within the city, a total of $10,211,877; and the said Columbia township now has an outstanding bonded indebtedness of $19,700, against which there is now held in the hands of the sinking fund commissioners for Richland county and applicable to the payment thereof the sum of $12,640.27, leaving a balance unprovided for of $7,059.73. That the said $12,640.27 in the hands of the sinking fund commissioners, as aforesaid, is the balance of the proceeds of the tax levied upon the property of the said township annually for the purpose of paying the interest and meeting and retiring the said bonds.

(6) That the city of Columbia is now the owner of and operating a waterworks plant and system, but the same has become inadequate to supply the needs of the city, and on the 11th day of April, 1905, a petition duly signed by a majority of the freeholders of the said city, as shown by the tax books of the said city, was presented to the city council of said city, asking that an election be ordered, submitting to the qualified electors of the said city the question: 'Whether for the purpose of enlarging, extending and repairing its waterworks, waterworks system and plant, the city shall issue coupon bonds, as provided by law, to the amount of $400,000, or so much thereof as may be legally issued by the said city.'

(7) In accordance with and pursuant to the said petition of freeholders, and under the provisions of the act of assembly of March 9, 1896, and acts amendatory thereto, being now section 2021 of the Code of Civil Laws of this state, the city council of the city of Columbia, in council assembled, by resolution ordered the said election, and requested and authorized the commissioners of election of Richland county to conduct the same according to law; and thereafter the said commissioners of election, prior to said election, published due notice of said election, as required by law, for the 9th May, 1905, in 'The State' and 'The Record,' two daily papers published in the city of Columbia.

(8) That the said election was duly held on the 9th May, 1905, and a majority of the voters voting at said election voted in favor of the issue of said bonds, as petitioner is informed and believes, and the result is about to be so declared by said city council by ordinance, and in pursuance of said election the city council are preparing to issue and are about to issue $400,000 coupons bonds for the purposes aforesaid, and to deliver the same to its waterworks commission for said purpose.

(9) Your petitioner, upon information and belief, alleges that the said election is illegal and void, and not sufficient to authorize the issue of any bonds, for the reason: (a) That no 'Commissioner of Public Works' was voted for or elected at said election, as is provided for in section 2009 of volume 1, of the Civil Code of Laws of South Carolina. (b) Petitioner is informed and believes the city of Columbia and the said city council do not intend to devote the entire revenue of its waterworks as enlarged, extended and repaired as contemplated, solely and exclusively to the maintenance and operation of the same; whereas, your petitioner submits that by the constitutional amendment of 1901 their doing so is made a condition of the exercise of the power to issue bonds therein referred to, and your petitioner further submits that said city and city council should be required to do so.

(10) Your petitioner is informed and believes that the city council of Columbia are without authority to issue $400,000 worth of bonds for the purposes aforesaid, for the reason that: (a) $400,000, in addition to the present bonded debt of the city, including the guaranty on the canal bonds of the coupons thereof, and the proportion of the bonded debt of Columbia township chargeable to its taxable property within the city, will contravene section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution of this state, in that it will exceed 15 per cent. of the taxable property within the limits of the city. (b) The city council of Columbia claims that the amendment of 1901 to section 7 of article 8 of the Constitution, which is as follows: 'Provided, that the limitations imposed by this section and by section 5, art. 4, of this Constitution, shall not apply to bonded indebtedness incurred by the cities of Columbia, Rock Hill, Charleston and Florence, where the proceeds of said bonds are applied solely for the purpose, establishment, maintenance or increase of waterworks plans, sewerage system; and by the city of Georgetown, when the proceeds of said bonds are applied solely for the purchase, establishment, maintenance or increase of waterworks plant or sewerage system, gas and electric light plants, where the entire revenue arising from the operation of such plants or systems shall be devoted solely and exclusively to the maintenance and operation of the same, and where the question of incurring such indebtedness is submitted to the freeholders and qualified voters of such municipality, as provided in the Constitution, upon the question of other bonded indebtedness,' in repealing the 8 per cent. limitation as to the said cities, where the increase of bonded indebtedness is for the purpose therein specified, carried with it and also repealed by necessary implication the 15 per cent. limitation provided in section 5, art. 10, as to the said cities, where the increase of bonded indebtedness is for said purposes; whereas, your petitioner submits that said 15 per cent. limitation is wholly unaffected by said amendment repealing said 8 per cent. limitation as aforesaid, and that same still remains in full force as to said cities, even when the proposed increase is for the purposes aforesaid. (c) The said city council also claims that the clause in said amendments, 'where the entire revenue arising from the operation of such plants or systems shall be devoted solely and exclusively to the maintenance and operation of the same,' applies only to the city of Georgetown, whereas, your petitioner submits that it also applies to the other cities named in said amendment, including the city of Columbia; and further submits that, inasmuch as the city of Columbia does not intend that the entire revenue of its waterworks as enlarged, extended and repaired, as contemplated, shall be devoted exclusively to such uses, the said city has no power to increase its bonded indebtedness to any amount under the terms of said amendment.

(11) Your petitioner submits that under a proper construction of section 7 of article 8, as amended, and section 5 of article 10, of the Constitution, the city of Columbia, if otherwise authorized to do so, has power to issue only $75,097 of bonds for the purposes aforesaid, as is shown by the following table:

Taxable property of the city is $7,836,398 15 per

cent of which is...