Smith v. Littlejohn
| Decision Date | 02 July 1929 |
| Docket Number | 12695. |
| Citation | 148 S.E. 719,151 S.C. 137 |
| Parties | SMITH v. LITTLEJOHN et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Petition by C. M. Smith against N.H. Littlejohn and others to enjoin respondents from issuing and selling certain bonds of their school district. Judgment for petitioner.
J. C Fort, of Gaffney, for petitioner.
C. S Monteith, Jr., of Columbia, for respondents.
The petitioner seeks, in our original jurisdiction, an order enjoining the respondents from issuing and selling certain bonds of their school district. There is but one real question raised, that relating to a constitutional matter.
Section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution, adopted in 1895 contains the following provision:
That section of the article mentioned was amended by proper acts of the General Assembly, and a vote of the electors of the state, in the following manner: "Provided, further, That the limitations imposed by this section shall not apply to School District No. 10, Cherokee County, such school district being hereby expressly authorized to vote bonds to an amount not exceeding $300,000.00, the proceeds of such bonds to be applied solely for school purposes in said district, under such restrictions and limitations as the General Assembly may prescribe, and where the question of incurring such indebtedness is submitted to the qualified electors of said school district, as provided in the Constitution upon the question of bonded indebtedness."
The act submitting the proposed amendment will be found at page 1354 of the Acts of 1922. The ratifying act will be found at page 4 of the Acts of 1923. It appears that there was an error in the first act of ratification, as the wrong section was mentioned in the act, but that act was repealed at the 1923 session. See pages 3 and 4 of the Acts of 1923.
Pursuant to the constitutional amendment the General Assembly, at the session of 1923, passed an act entitled, "An Act to Authorize the Trustees of School District No. 10 of Cherokee County, the State of South Carolina, to Order and Hold an Election on the Question of the Issue of Coupon Bonds of Said School District in an Amount not Exceeding Three Hundred Thousand ($300,000.00) Dollars, the Proceeds Thereof to be Used for the Purpose of Purchasing of Lots or Lot in Said School District and Erecting School Buildings Thereon and for Altering, Repairing or Adding to Existing Buildings and Equipping School Buildings." Act March 8, 1923 (33 St. at Large, p. 567).
The bonds referred to in the last-mentioned legislative enactment were duly issued and are outstanding.
On March 16, 1929, the Governor approved an act of the General Assembly, passed at the session of this year (36 St. at Large, p. 772), entitled, "An Act to Authorize and Empower the Trustees of School District No. 10 of Cherokee County to Borrow a Sum of Money not exceeding Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars and to Provide for the Levy of a Tax to Retire said Loan."
The act last mentioned provides that the trustees of school district No. 10 of Cherokee county are authorized to issue bonds to an amount not exceeding $50,000, "for the purpose of erecting, improving and repairing such structures as may by said Trustees be deemed necessary properly to equip and maintain necessary school buildings." Following the passage of that last act, the qualified electors of the school district approved the issue of the bonds referred to. It is this issue of bonds that the petitioner contends is illegal, and the issue of which he seeks to enjoin.
It is conceded by the parties that the assessed valuation of property for taxation in the school district is the sum of $3,846,939; that the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the district is $330,000 (including the issue of $300,000 pursuant to the act of 1923); and that the sinking fund on hand for the retirement of the bonded debt is $21,000. It is admitted that the bonds lately voted, and proposed to be sold under the act of 1929, added to the outstanding bonded debt, even deducting the sinking fund, will result in exceeding the 8 per cent. limitation of bonded indebtedness referred to in section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution; in fact, the bonded debt of the district is at this time slightly in excess of that limitation.
The respondents claim that the amendment to the Constitution as to school district No. 10 of Cherokee county, ratified by the General Assembly in 1923, permits the school district to issue bonds for school purposes, "under such restrictions and limitations as the General Assembly may prescribe," to an amount not exceeding $300,000, in addition to the 8 per cent. of the assessed value of the property of the school district permitted to be issued by section 5 of article 10. The petitioner contends that the amendment to the Constitution did not raise the percentage of limitation to which the school district might issue bonds, but merely authorized the school district to issue bonds not exceeding the sum of $300,000. And this is the question to be decided by this court.
It is obviously clear that under the original provisions of section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution, school district No. 10 of Cherokee county could not issue any bonded indebtedness which exceeded 8 per centum of the assessed value of all the taxable property therein. It is evident, too, that the purpose of the General Assembly, and the people of the state, was to change that constitutional provision in so far as that particular school district was concerned.
The intention of the change sought to be made must be gathered from the language used in the amendment of 1923. The first thing stated in that amendment is "that the limitations imposed by" section 5 of article 10 ""shall not apply to School District No. 10, Cherokee County ***" Undoubtedly, if the amendment had stopped there, all the limitations found in section 5 of article 10 would have been inapplicable to school district No. 10 of Cherokee county, and that district could have issued any amount of bonds authorized by the Legislature, and voted favorably by the qualified electors of the school district. But the amendment went farther. In lieu of the original limitations on School District No. 10, certain language fixing other limitations was inserted. The school district was authorized to vote bonds, but only under certain restrictions, namely: (1) That the bonds should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middleton v. Littlejohn
...school district No. 10 of Cherokee County has continuing authority under such amendment, subject to the restrictions therein named (Smith v. Littlejohn, supra), to vote and bonds of the district solely for school purposes, provided that the aggregate amount of such bonds is never in excess ......