Smith v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 28 February 1947
• Docket Number: 15919.
• Parties: SMITH v. ROBERTSON et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

41 S.E.2d 631

210 S.C. 99

SMITH v. ROBERTSON et al.

No. 15919.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 28, 1947

Stoney, Crosland & Pritchard, of Charleston for petitioner.

John M. Daniel, Atty. Gen., R. McC. Figg, Jr., Huger Sinkler, and John I. Cosgrove, all of Charleston, for respondents.

L. D LIDE, Acting Associate Justice.

Pursuant to permission duly granted, this action was instituted in the original jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner above named against the respondents above named to secure a permanent injunction against the issuance of certain bonds of Charleston County, the petition alleging that the act authorizing and directing the issuance of these bonds is unconstitutional, upon the various grounds therein set forth. The cause was heard by us upon the verified pleadings including certain exhibits, and the arguments of counsel for the respective parties.

The factual allegations of the petition are admitted in the return, and the additional facts set forth in the return, as distinguished from mere opinions and legal conclusions, are not controverted by the petitioner. The petitioner is a resident, citizen, freeholder and taxpayer of the County of Charleston and the State of South Carolina, and the respondents are the County Board of Commissioners of Charleston County and The Medical College of the State of South Carolina. The latter is a corporate entity created by the General Assembly for the maintenance of a State owned Medical College, the management and control thereof being vested in a board of trustees, all of which will more fully appear by reference to Sections 5794 to 5799, both inclusive, Code 1942. The same will hereinafter sometimes be referred to as the Medical College.

The General Assembly of the State at the regular 1946 session duly adopted an act, approved by the Governor on March 25, 1946, and effective on that date, the same being designated as No. 603, Acts 1946, [210 S.C. 104] page 1734; and might properly be called the appropriation act. For this act refers to a number of State institutions, including the Medical College, making appropriations for each one of them, the appropriation for the Medical College being in the sum of $1,500,000; the funds appropriated for this particular institution being 'for hospital and clinical facilities' for use by it on a matching basis with funds to be furnished by the Federal Government. And the act provides with regard to all of these institutions, in substance, that none of the funds appropriated shall be spent for the acquisition or purchase of any land site on which buildings are to be erected, but that the respective buildings shall be erected on land now owned by the respective institutions, and if suitable land sites are not now owned (quoting), 'the respective counties wherein such Institution or Institutions are located shall furnish, at their own expense, such necessary land upon which said buildings are erected.'

Shortly thereafter, and at the same session of the General Assembly, an act was duly adopted which was approved by the Governor on April 3, 1946, and effective on that date, designated as No. 889, Acts 1946, page 2612; and this act will hereinafter be frequently called the bond act. And this is the act the constitutionality of which is attacked in the action at bar, the full title thereof being as follows:

'An Act To Give And Grant To Counties And Certain State Institutions The Right To Acquire Lands, By Purchase Or Condemnation, For The Construction Of New Hospital Buildings Of Such State Institutions And For The Erection Of Hospitals And/Or Medical Centers In Such Counties; To Authorize And/Or Direct The Counties Authorized Or Required To Furnish Such Lands To Issue County Bonds In Amounts Sufficient To Pay The Acquisition Costs Thereof; And To Provide For The Levy Of Taxes In Such Counties To Pay The Principal And Interest Of Any Bonds Issued Hereunder.'

This act, among other things, authorizes and directs the County Board of Commissioners of every county which is required to furnish land in connection with the construction of new buildings for any State institution, to issue negotiable coupon bonds of the county in an amount sufficient to pay the total cost to such county of the land, together with the costs and expenses of its acquisition; such bonds to be general obligations of the country, the proper officers being directed to levy and collect annually a tax upon all taxable property in the county sufficient for the payment of the same.

Pursuant to this act the Board of Trustees of the Medical College acting through the Dean thereof, notifed the County Board of Commissioners of Charleston County in writing of their plans to construct a teaching hospital, to be used in conjunction with the activities of the Medical College, and requested the County Board to make available to it, as a site for the same, a tract of land in the City of Charleston encompassed by Lucas Street on the west, Doughty Street on the north, Ashley Avenue on the east, and Mill Street on the south. In accordance with this request the County Board held a meeting on January 13, 1947, and duly adopted a resolution, a full copy of which is attached to the petition herein as an exhibit thereto. This resolution provides for the issuance by Charleston County of $350,000 general obligation bonds as described in the bond act, the proceeds of which are to be used to acquire the site for the teaching hospital, and the bonds both principal and interest, are to be payable from a direct ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County of Charleston. The resolution, however, specifically stipulates that the bonds in question shall neither be advertised for sale nor issued until the Chairman of the County Board shall receive from the Board of Trustees of the Medical College 'a certificate, certifying that there is available to said Board the sum of not less than Four Million ($4,000,000.00) Dollars, and that said sum has been irrevocably allocated to the construction and equipment of a Teaching Hospital to be located on the site contemplated by this Resolution.'

The resolution also recites that the estimated cost of acquiring the site is $350,000 and that the Board has determined that this site is a suitable one, and has found as a fact that the construction by the Medical College of this hospital in the County of Charleston (quoting) 'would be of especial and peculiar benefit to the residents of Charleston County in the enjoyment of the improved hospital facilities thus provided, and that the location of such hospital in said County, will be of special benefit to the property woners therein to an extent greater than the amount to be expended by said County in providing the land to make the construction of the hospital possible.'

The bond act, the constitutionality of which is questioned in this action, contains, as hereinbefore indicated, the following limitation with reference to the amount of the bonds, to wit, that they shall not exceed 'an amount sufficient to pay the total cost to the county of said land together with the costs and expenses of the acquisition thereof, whether by purchase or condemnation.'

The petition raises in proper form several objections to the constitutionality of the bond act, expressly alleging that it is in violation of certain provisions of the State and Federal Constitutionns. These objections are five in number, but in view of petitioner's brief we think they may be treated as making four questions to be considered and answered by us.

However, before entering upon the discussion of these important constitutional questions we deem it proper to recall the well established rules prescribed for the guidance of the Court in matters of this character, as carefully and accurately stated in the following excerpt from the opinion of the Court in the case of Clarke v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 177 S.C. 427, 181 S.E. 481, 484:

'The court in this case is called upon to pass upon the constitutionality of the act. In determining this question it is to be observed that it is a well-settled rule in South Carolina that: A statute will, if possible, be construed so as to render it valid; that a legislative act will not be declared unconstitutional unless its repugnance to the Constitution is clear and beyond reasonable doubt; that every presumption will be made in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment; that it will be declared unconstitutional only when its invalidity appears so clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt that it violates some provision of the Constitution; that all reasonable presumptions must be made in favor of the validity of the Act; and that the Constitution of South Carolina is a limitation upon, rather than a grant of, legislative power.'

The first and fundamental question before us may be briefly stated as follows:

Does the bond act violate Section 5, Article X, or Section 6, Article X, of the State Constitution, relating to the levy of taxes and the issuance of bonds by counties?

Section 5 provides that counties as well as certain other public or municipal corporations, may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, and there are certain provisions in this section relating to the issuance of bonds. But Section 6 to a certain extent limits the levy of taxes and the issuance of bonds, for it provides that the General Assembly 'shall not have power to authorize any county or township to levy a tax or issue bonds for any purpose except for educational purposes, to build and repair public roads, buildings and bridges, to maintain and support prisoners, pay jurors, county officers, and for litigation quarantine and cour...