Smith v. South Carolina State Highway Com'n

• Decision Date: 26 January 1927
• Docket Number: 12147.
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

136 S.E. 487

138 S.C. 374

SMITH et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 12147.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 26, 1927

Original petition for injunction by Hovey Smith, individually and in behalf of all other bus operators in South Carolina similarly situated, against the South Carolina State Highway Commission. Injunction granted.

Mauldin & Love, of Greenville, for petitioner.

John M Daniel, Atty. Gen., and Cordie Page, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BLEASE J.

This cause involves the construction of certain provisions of Act No. 34 of the General Assembly, approved March 23, 1925 entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide for a state system of hard surface top soil and other dependable types of highways in this state,' known as Act No. 731 of the Acts of 1924, so as to reduce the licenses of automobiles and increase the tax on gasoline," and provisions contained in Act No. 170 approved April 8, 1925, entitled "An act providing for the regulation, supervision, and control of persons, firms, corporations, and associations owning, controlling, operating or managing motor vehicles used in the business of transporting persons or property for compensation on the improved public highways of this state, which are, or may hereafter be declared to be parts of the state highway systems, or any of the county highway systems, or the streets of any city or town, and prescribing and imposing license fees and providing for the disposition of the revenue raised by the same." We refer to the act first mentioned as the "General Highway Act," and the one last mentioned as the "Bus Regulation Act."

The petitioner, who has operated a bus line between Greenville and Anderson since June 8, 1925, alleges in brief the following matters: That he has complied in full with the terms of the "Bus Regulation Act" and with all the rules and regulations made by the respondent, South Carolina State Highway Commission; that he is the owner and holder of a class A certificate issued to him under the authority of section 4 of the Bus Regulation Act; that he has paid all license fees imposed under section 6 of that act; that the respondent demands of the petitioner, in addition to the fees already paid by him, certain fees or licenses imposed under section 9 of Act No. 731 of the General Assembly of 1924, as amended by Act No. 34 of 1925; that the respondent threatens to revoke the certificate issued to him, and to have petitioner arrested for not complying with the provisions of the "General Highway Act."

Upon application to Mr. Associate Justice COTHRAN, the respondent was restrained from proceeding with efforts to collect the "annual license tax," until the matter was heard by this court, and was required to make return to the petition filed herein. In the return the respondent admits the allegations of fact contained in the petition, but alleges that the petitioner should be required to pay the license fees required in both the "General Highway Act" and the "Bus Regulation Act."

In the amendatory "General Highway Act," No. 34 of 1925, there is in the amended section 9 the following provision:

"On and after January 1, 1925, every resident owner of a motor vehicle in the state of South Carolina shall pay the state highway commission, in lieu of all other state, municipal or county licenses, an annual license as follows. *** All licenses shall expire on the 31st day of December following the day of issuance. Annual license shall hereafter be issued between the first day of January and the first day of February of each year. In the case of motor vehicles registering for the first time, the full annual fee shall be paid for licenses issued between January 1st and March 31st; three-fourths of the annual license fee for license between April 1st and June 30th; one-half of the annual fee for license between July 1st and September 30th; and one-fourth of the annual fee for license issued between October 1st and December 31st."

In section 6 of the "Bus Regulation Act," wherein the license fees for motor vehicles operating as busses are fixed, there is contained the following provisions:

"Provided, however, that an applicant for a certificate B will not be required to furnish schedule with this application, and for all such motor vehicles the following annual fees shall be paid to the highway commission for license issued by him, and no additional license fees or license tax shall be charged the motor vehicle carrier by the state; nor, as to holders of certificate A or B, shall any city, town or county impose a license fee or license tax on such motor vehicle carrier. The carrying capacity weight of all passenger vehicles shall be computed upon a basis of one hundred and fifty pounds per passenger seat."

Section 17 of the "Bus Regulation Act" is as follows:

"The provisions of this act shall not be taken or held to repeal an act known as Act 605, acts of 1924, entitled 'An act to prohibit the imposition or collection of more than one license or occupation tax or municipalities with this state upon certain business.' All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of said inconsistency, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to relieve any motor vehicle as herein defined from any regulation otherwise imposed by law or lawful authority."

In the repealing clause of section 17, the reference to Act 605 of 1924 is erroneous. Obviously, the act which it was intended to refer to was No. 606 of the same year. The title of the act is also imperfectly stated. The correct title...