State v. Huntley
| Decision Date | 18 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | 13518. |
| Citation | 166 S.E. 637,167 S.C. 476 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. SELLERS et al. v. HUNTLEY et el., School Trustees. STATE ex rel. REDFERN et al. v. ADGERTON et al., and four other cases. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; E. C Dennis, Judge.
Mandamns proceeding by the State, on the relation of W. F. Sellers and others, against E. W. Huntley and others, as Trustees of the Wamble Hill School District No. 22 of Chesterfield County. From an adverse order, the trustees appeal.
Reversed.
P. A Murray, Jr., of Cheraw, for appellants.
Leppard & Leppard, of Chesterfield, for respondents.
At its 1932 session the Legislature passed an act (37 Stat. at Large, p. 1275) providing, inter alia, for the election of school trustees in Chesterfield county. Section 3 reads as follows: ***"
This proceeding was instituted in the circuit court of Chesterfield county by the relators, named in this appeal as respondents, who are citizens, taxpayers and electors of Wamble Hill school district No. 22 of that county; the appellants, referred to in the court below as respondents, are the duly qualified trustees of the Wamble Hill school district. Section 4 of the relators' verified petition is as follows: "That although the relators made due demand upon the respondents to call, conduct and certify the results of said election to the County Board of Education for Chesterfield County, in order for the said board to appoint the nominees of the said election as trustees of said school district for the term commencing July 1, 1932, as is provided for in said Statute, the said respondents have failed, neglected and refused to call and conduct said election, as is required of them by law."
On April 30, 1932, his honor, Judge Dennis, issued a rule against the appellants directing them to show cause before him why a writ of mandamus should not issue requiring them to hold an election for trustees of the Wamble Hill school district under the act of 1932. The appellants made return to the rule, by way of answer, denying that the act referred to devolved upon the trustees the duty of calling such election, and alleging that the trustees were approached with a petition too late to give the ten days' notice required by the act; and, further answering, they alleged that the act is unconstitutional, in that it is a special law where a general law could be made applicable, and, for the further reason, that "it attempts to provide for an election of school trustees in a primary election and dispenses with the requisites for voting required of electors and in attempting to regulate the qualifications of voters."
On hearing the return to the rule and the affidavits for and against, Judge Dennis, on May 14, 1932, granted the petition, and issued an order requiring the appellants to hold and conduct such election "according to the rules and regulations applicable to primary elections." From this order the trustees of Wamble Hill school district appeal.
The several exceptions make but three questions: (1) Does the act contravene subdivision 9 of section 34 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1895, which provides that a special law shall not be enacted where a general law can be made applicable? (2) Is the Act in violation of the several sections of the State Constitution relating to and regulating the requirements for voting and of elections? (3) Does the act provide that the county board of education appoint trustees upon the refusal of the incumbent trustees to call and conduct an election?
We think that the first question must be answered in the negative, and that the circuit judge was correct in so concluding. This court has held in a number of cases that the provisions of a statute, such as the one before us, relating to the election of trustees, are special provisions in the general law (State v. Meares, 148 S.C. 118, 145 S.E. 695; State v. McCaw, 77 S.C. 351, 58 S.E. 145), and that such special provisions may be enacted separately from the general law on the subject.
With regard to the third question, the circuit judge had this to say: "Although I have very grave doubts as to the constitutionality of the statute, as well as the proper construction of the act in general, and the particular clause providing for the appointment of trustees by the County Board of Education in the event any district should fail or neglect to elect trustees as therein provided, I am constrained to conclude that the act is constitutional."
The position of the appellants is that the act does not devolve upon the trustees the mandatory duty to call an election--in other words, that the power vested in the trustees to do so is discretionary only, and that, upon their failure and neglect to comply with the act, the county board of education shall then appoint. They rely upon the case of Moore v. Waters, 148 S.C. 326, 146 S.E. 92, to sustain their position. That case, however, is not controlling here. By the express terms of the act before us, the trustees are required to give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble v. Clarendon County
... ... raised would require considerably more research and delicacy ... of handling were it not for the fact that the Supreme Court ... of our State has within the past year in the case of ... Salley v. McCoy, 182 S.C. 249, 189 S.E. 196, in ... passing upon questions raised by demurrer in a ... enactments which are in form amendments, and enactments ... appearing as separate acts. State v. Huntley, 167 ... S.C. 476, 166 S.E. 637; Columbia v. Smith, 105 S.C ... 348, 89 S.E. 1028; Carolina Grocery Co. v. Burnet, ... 61 S.C. 205, 39 S.E ... ...
-
Home Builders Ass'n of S.C. v. Sch. Dist. No. 2 of Dorchester Cnty.
...by Article XI”) (citing Thorne v. Seabrook, 264 S.C. 503, 216 S.E.2d 177 (1975); McElveen, 240 S.C. 1, 124 S.E.2d 592;State v. Huntley, 167 S.C. 476, 166 S.E. 637 (1932)). Notably, Bradley did not condition its holding on a school district having “unique or special funding needs”; rather, B......
-
State v. Brown
... ... 52, 146 S.E. 686; ... that legislative act will not be declared unconstitutional ... [178 S.C. 309] unless its repugnance to the Constitution is ... clear and beyond a reasonable doubt, Gregg Dyeing Co. v ... Query, 166 S.C. 117, 164 S.E. 588; State ex rel. v ... Huntley, 167 S.C. 476, 166 S.E. 637; all reasonable ... presumptions must be indulged in favor of the validity of the ... act, and it is only when its invalidity appears so clearly as ... to leave no room for reasonable doubt that it violates some ... provision of the Constitution that a court will ... ...
-
Walker v. Harris
... ... commissioner under the terms of that statute are the same as ... those of the forfeited land commissions of the various ... counties of the state. The petitioner's appointment and ... qualification under that act are not questioned in this ... proceeding except [170 S.C. 244] as to the matter ... general laws. State v. Meares, 148 S.C. 118, 145 ... S.E. 695; State ex rel. Sellers v. Huntley et al., ... 167 S.C. 476, 166 S.E. 637 ... The law ... now in question, as previously indicated, is an exception in ... the ... ...