Stevenson v. Carrison

• Citation: 115 S.E. 251,122 S.C. 212
• Decision Date: 29 December 1922
• Docket Number: 11083.
• Parties: STEVENSON ET AL. v. CARRISON, MAYOR, ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

115 S.E. 251

122 S.C. 212

STEVENSON ET AL. v. CARRISON, MAYOR, ET AL.

No. 11083.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 29, 1922

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.

Action by R. E. Stevenson and others against N. G. Carrison, Jr., as Mayor, and others. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The decree of Judge Mauldin was as follows:

This action was commenced by the plaintiffs, taxpayers and citizens of the city of Camden, S. C., in their own behalf and that of all the taxpayers of said city, wherein it is sought to obtain a perpetual injunction against said city and its council, to enjoin a bond issue to the amount of $115,000; the city having heretofore issued and sold $85,000 of bonds, being a part of a $200,000 issue petitioned for by the freeholders, and thereafter voted for by a majority of the qualified voters of said city. The $85,000 of bonds already sold are not involved in this proceeding. The city council of Camden, desiring to issue said bonds for street improvement, submitted to the qualified voters the question of whether said bonds should be issued. The result of the election thereon was declared in favor of the issue. Some question arose as to the validity of such bond issue, and this action was instituted to determine that question. The plaintiffs contended that the proposed bond issue would be invalid in so far as it undertakes to exempt said city from the limitations of indebtedness, based on the assessed value of the taxable property in said city, provided for by section 7, art. 8, and section 5, art. 10, of the Constitution; that the amendment to section 7, art. 8 exempting said city from the limitations of said sections of the Constitution, was not passed in accordance with the requirements of section 1, art. 16, of the Constitution which requires all joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments to be passed by a yea and nay vote; as appears by the Senate and House Journals of 1910, the proposed amendment was referred to a conference committee for report. The amendment to the joint resolution, as proposed by the conference committee, involved only the question of the form in which said constitutional amendment should be submitted to the voters. The report of the conference committee was adopted by the Senate without a yea and nay vote. As to whether the proposed bond issue would increase the bonded indebtedness of the city of Camden in violation of section 7, art. 8, and section 5, art. 10, of the Constitution, depends wholly upon the validity of the constitutional amendment proposed by the joint resolution, and amendment thereto passed by the General Assembly at the 1910 session, which constitutional amendment undertook to exempt said city from the limitation of both sections.

It will be observed...