Stackhouse v. Rowland

• Decision Date: 21 July 1910
• Citation: 68 S.E. 561,86 S.C. 419
• Parties: STACKHOUSE et al. v. ROWLAND et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

68 S.E. 561

86 S.C. 419

STACKHOUSE et al. v. ROWLAND et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 21, 1910

Mandamus proceedings by R. P. Stackhouse and others against J. W Rowland and others. Writ issued.

Livingston & Gibson, for relators. W. B. Hargrove, for respondents.

WOODS J.

In this proceeding for mandamus the relators, constituting the courthouse commission of Dillon county, ask that the county board of commissioners of that county be required to execute and deliver county bonds to the amount of $40,000, to be sold by them and the proceeds expended in the construction of a courthouse and jail. The respondents allege that the statute law of the state authorizes the board of commissioners to issue bonds when such issue has been approved by a majority vote at an election held in pursuance of the statute. It is conceded that an election was held at all the election precincts in the county after due advertisement, under the order and control of the board of election commissioners of the county, and that at such election there was a majority vote in favor of the issue of the bonds; but it is contended that this election was illegal and could confer no authority to issue the bonds, in that the act required the election to be ordered and conducted by the county board of commissioners, not at all the voting precincts, but at the town of Dillon alone.

The county of Dillon was established by act of the Legislature approved February 5, 1910 (26 St. at Large, p. 863). Among other things necessary to the organization of the new county the statute provided for the erection of a courthouse and jail by the commissioners who are the relators in these proceedings. This act authorized the commissioners to receive donations, but invested them with no power to obtain funds by pledge of the public credit or otherwise. The attempt was made to supply this deficiency, and to provide the commissioners with the funds requisite for the construction of the public buildings by an act approved on the 25th day of February, 1910 (26 St. at Large, p. 960). The first section of this statute provided: "That for the purpose of providing additional funds for erecting and furnishing or equipping a new courthouse building for the county of Dillon at Dillon, S. C., the county board of commissioners of said county be, and they are hereby, authorized and empowered to issue and deliver to the special courthouse commission hereinafter named, interest-bearing coupon bonds of said county, to be known as "courthouse bonds," in the aggregate sum of forty thousand ($40,000) dollars, *** Provided, That for the purpose of determining the issue of bonds authorized in section 1 of this act, the said commissioners shall order an election to be held at Dillon, on the second Tuesday in April, 1910, on the question whether the said bonds shall be issued or not, in which election only the qualified voters residing in said district shall be allowed to vote, and said commissioners shall give notice of said election for three weeks in the Dillon Herald, a newspaper published in the town of Dillon, shall designate the time and place and appoint the managers of said election, and receive the returns of the managers and declare the result." The difficulty is indicated by the words of the statute we have italicized. Viewing the context alone no one would hesitate to say that "the said commissioners" who are required to order the election meant the county board of commissioners, for that board of commissioners had just been referred to in the act as the commissioners authorized to issue the bonds. But it was impossible for the county board of commissioners to order an election on the second Tuesday in April, 1910, because no such board was or could have been then in existence inasmuch as the act creating the county of Dillon provided that on that same day the first county board of commissioners should be elected. Hence, if the statute providing for the election on the bond issue be construed so as to give force to all the words just as they are used, the absurd result would be reached that an election was to be held by a board which could not be in existence at the date fixed for the election; and so there could be no election. Giving the ordinary meaning to the words used, the further absurdity would be inevitable that the question of issuing bonds for county purposes, binding on the entire county, should be decided by an election held at the town of Dillon, where only the electors registered at that precinct could vote.

However plain the ordinary meaning of the words used in a statute may be, the courts will reject that meaning, when to accept it would lead to a result so plainly absurd that it could not...