State v. City of Columbia

• Decision Date: 08 July 1887
• Citation: 3 S.E. 55,27 S.C. 137
• Parties: STATE ex rel. COLUMBIA BRIDGE CO. v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, and another, as Sheriff.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

3 S.E. 55

27 S.C. 137

STATE ex rel. COLUMBIA BRIDGE CO. v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, and another, as Sheriff.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 8, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Richland county.

Allen J. Green, for appellants.

Clark & Muller, for respondent.

McIVER J.

This was an application for a prohibition to restrain the collection of a tax imposed by the authorities of the city of Columbia, upon the bridge across the Congaree, at Columbia owned by the relator. The circuit judge held that no part of said bridge was within the corporate limits of the city of Columbia, and hence that there was no authority for the imposition of the tax complained of. He therefore granted an order that the writ of prohibition should issue, prohibiting the enforcement of the execution which had been issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff. From this order the city council appeal upon the several grounds set out in the record, which need not be repeated in detail here.

It is conceded that the question presented by this appeal turns solely upon the inquiry, what is the correct location of the western boundary of the city of Columbia? By the act of 1786 (4 St. 751,) for the purpose of establishing a town to "be called and known by the name of Columbia," and removing the seat of government thereto, certain commissioners were "authorized and required to lay off a tract of land of two miles square, near Friday's Ferry on the Congaree river, including the plain of the hill whereon Thomas and James Taylor, Esquires, now reside, into lots of half an acre each, and the streets shall be of such dimensions, not less than sixty feet wide, as they shall think convenient and necessary, with two principal streets, running through the center of the town, at right angles, of one hundred and fifty feet wide; which said land shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, vested in the said commissioners, and their lawful successors, for the use of this state." The second section of the act provides for the payment to the proprietors of the land, thus authorized and required to be taken for the establishment of said town, of a generous price for the same, at a valuation to be fixed by the commissioners. The other provisions of the act throw no light upon the question presented, and need not, therefore, be stated. In pursuance of the provisions of this act, the commissioners appointed for the purpose seem to have laid off the land now constituting the city of Columbia, and made a map of the same, which was filed in the office of the secretary of state. According to this map, the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the town (now city) of Columbia are laid down as straight lines, two miles in length; but the western boundary, where the Congaree river runs, is left open; and, as we have said, the only controversy is as to the correct location of that boundary line.

The relator contends that the correct location of the western boundary is to be found by beginning at the point where the northern line reaches the Congaree river, and running thence, down said river, following its various sinuosities, to the point where the southern line strikes said river. The appellants, on the other hand, contend that the western boundary can only be correctly located by running a straight line from the point where the northern line strikes the river to the terminus of the southern line on said river; or, at least, upon the principle applicable to proprietors of lands on unnavigable streams, the limits of the city must be held to extend to the middle of the river, and that the western boundary must be located by beginning at a point in the center of the stream, immediately opposite the terminus of the northern line, and thence running down the river, following the filum aqu to a point immediately opposite the terminus of the southern line.

It is conceded that, if either of the locations of the western boundary contended for by appellants be established, a portion at least of the bridge will fall within the city limits, and will therefore be liable to taxation; and hence, in order to sustain the order appealed from, it will be necessary to establish, as the western boundary, the east bank of the river, under which location no part of the bridge would be embraced within the city limits.

It is difficult for us to conceive of any valid reason why the east bank of the river should be established as the western boundary of the city. It certainly is not so declared in the act authorizing and requiring the laying out of the town, and it is not laid down as a boundary on the map filed in the office of the secretary of state. It is true that the river is laid down on the west side of the map, but it is not designated as a boundary, and there certainly is nothing to indicate that the east bank of the river was intended to be the boundary. On the contrary, the western boundary is left entirely open, and, to determine its correct location, we must resort to other considerations. It will be observed that the commissioners are not only authorized, but are required to do certain things, and upon a well-settled principle, we must assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that they did what was required of them by the act. Now, what was required of them? The act shows that they were required "to lay off a tract of land of two miles square, near Friday's Ferry, on the Congaree river, including the plain of the hill whereon Thomas and James Taylor, Esquires, now reside." The only discretion with which they were invested was as to the width of all but the two principal streets, and even that was limited, so that none of the streets should be less than 60 feet in width. The requirement that the tract to be laid off should be two miles square, was just as positive and binding as that it should be near Friday's Ferry, or that it should be on the Congaree river, or that it should include the hill on which the Taylors resided. This being their duty, the presumption is that they did it,--that they did lay off a tract two miles square, and this renders it necessary to adopt the location of the western boundary as contended for by the appellants; for, as it is conceded that the other boundaries are correct, the only possible way of making the tract of land conform to the requirement of the act would be by making the western boundary a straight line between the termini of the northern and southern lines. The little evidence that is obtainable after so great a lapse of time, so far from tending to rebut the presumption that the commissioners did what was required of them by the act, rather tends, in our judgment, to support the presumption. It is manifest that all the lines which were capable of being run by a surveyor were so run as to form a square, and inasmuch as the only line remaining to complete the required figure,--a...