State v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 24 September 1913
• Citation: 79 S.E. 309,95 S.C. 463
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BATES et al. v. PATTERSON, County Sup'r, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

79 S.E. 309

95 S.C. 463

STATE ex rel. BATES et al. v. PATTERSON, County Sup'r, et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 24, 1913

Petition by the State, on relation of H. G. Bates and others, against Andrew Patterson, Jr., as County Supervisor of Richland County and Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and others, for an injunction. Writ granted.

De Bouhl & McLauchlin, of Columbia, for petitioners. Clarkson & Clarkson and Melton & Belser, all of Columbia, for respondents.

FRASER J.

This is a proceeding in the original jurisdiction of this court to enjoin the county authorities of Richland county from using the chain gang of Richland county in the construction of a highway within what was formerly the town of Shandon, now a part of the city of Columbia. There are several questions involved in the hearing on the merits but one is sufficient for the purposes of this motion.

It is conceded by the county authorities that the road is being built under contractors. The county is to prepare the road for a top covering, or bitulithic covering, and the bitulithic covering is to be put on by the employés of the contractors. It is further conceded that the chain gang is kept only a half block in advance of the contractors' employés. The Code of 1912 (section 957) contains this proviso: "Provided, that said chain gang shall not be worked in connection with or near any road contractor or overseer." The Century Dictionary defines "connection": "1. The state of being connected or joined; union by junction, by an intervening substance or medium, by dependence or relation, or by order in a series."

Where one is laying the substructure and the other the superstructure, the parties are working in connection with each other. On the face of the statute it appears to be forbidden. The effect of the several statutes on each other cannot be settled until the exact status of the Codes under the Constitution is determined. That question is now before the Supreme Court, and ought not to be decided by one member. On the face of this statute, the collaboration of the chain gang and the employés of a contractor is forbidden and the respondents ought not to proceed in this way until the question can be heard by the full court.

It is therefore ordered that the respondents be, and they are hereby, enjoined from using the chain gang in connection with the employés of the contractors in the building and...