Stone v. City Council of City of Greenville

Decision Date29 March 1920
Docket Number10391.
Citation102 S.E. 755,113 S.C. 407
PartiesSTONE v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF GREENVILLE.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

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

Action by C. B. Stone against the City Council of City of Greenville. From an order denying temporary injunction plaintiff appeals. Reversed to the extent indicated in the opinion.

Martin & Blythe, of Greenville, for appellant.

Oscar Hodges and Haynsworth & Haynsworth, all of Greenville, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

As a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Greenville, plaintiff sued to enjoin the city council from issuing notes authorized by an act of the Legislature approved March 1, 1919 (31 Stat 549), for the purchase of fire apparatus for said city, on the ground that said act is unconstitutional, in that it permits the increase of the bonded debt of the city, without submitting the question to a vote of the people, as required by section 7 of article 8 of the Constitution and the statutes enacted in pursuance thereof.

The act authorizes the city council to borrow the sum of not exceeding $50,000 for the purchase of additional fire apparatus and the equipment of the fire department of said city, and to issue notes for the amount borrowed, payable in ten annual payments, and requires the levy of a sufficient tax to pay the annual installments and the interest.

Prior to the commencement of this action, a dispute had arisen between the city council and the board of fire commissioners of said city as to which of said bodies had authority to control the fire department and purchase the necessary supplies and equipment therefor, and an action had been commenced by Beattie and other citizens and taxpayers against the city council and said board to determine that question. In that action both the council and the board of fire commissioners had been enjoined pendente lite from exercising the authority. But, as action in the premises by somebody appeared to be urgent by consent of all parties, in Beattie et al. v. City Council et al., 102 S.E. 751 an order was passed modifying the previous injunction, so that a committee of citizens agreeable to all parties should select and purchase the necessary apparatus, and the city council should procure the funds and make the necessary appropriation to pay for same.

Plaintiff alleged that said committee selected and recommended the purchase of certain apparatus at and for the sum of approximately $30,000; that the city council intended to pay for same by issuing notes therefor, according to the provisions of the act of March 1, 1919, and not merely by giving notes for money borrowed in anticipation of the collection of the taxes for the current year and to be paid out of such taxes, when collected, as is permissible under the section of the Constitution and statutes above referred to; that council could not hope to pay for said apparatus out of the income of the current year without so depleting the funds necessary for other municipal purposes as to create a large debt against the city; and that the purchase of said apparatus was unnecessary, as the city already had sufficient apparatus, with the limited force employed, for the protection of the citizens against fire.

On the verified complaint, a rule to show cause was issued, which carried a temporary restraining order against the purchase of the apparatus, or the issuance of notes in payment therefor under the act of March 1, 1919. The answer of the city council contested plaintiffs' conclusions as to the validity of the act of March 1, 1919, and its authority to issue the notes therein authorized, and denied the allegations of fact, except as specifically admitted. They alleged that the citizens' committee had authority, under the order passed in Beattie et al. v. City Council et al., to select and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bolton v. Wharton
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Octubre 1931
    ... ... C. Wharton, as Mayor of ... the City of Union, George H. Burr & Company, and others, with ... a ... The matter of the city ... council assisting in the location of such mill was taken up ... City ... Council of Greenville (1890) 33 S.C. 1, 24, 11 S.E. 434, ... 438, 8 L. R. A ... does so at his risk." Stone v. City Council of City of ... Greenville (1919) 113 S.C ... ...
  • Carter v. City of Greenville
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1935
    ... ... Greenville, seek to permanently enjoin the city of ... Greenville, its mayor and council, from carrying out a ... proposed scheme whereby the city would acquire the present ... post office property in Greenville for a city hall, the ... resolution and approving the present scheme, the court is ... bound thereby. Stone" v. City Council of Greenville, ... 113 S.C. 407, 102 S.E. 755; Green v. City of Rock ... Hill, 149 S.C. 234, at pages 262, 263, 147 S.E. 346 ... \xC2" ... ...
  • Mason v. Williams
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 28 Mayo 1940
    ... ... other taxpayers of the City of Spartanburg who may come in ... and contribute to the ... That on March 21, 1932, the City Council of the City of ... Spartanburg passed a formal resolution ... As is ... stated in Stone v. City Council of City of Greenville, 113 ... S.C. 407, ... ...
  • Tarver v. Town of Johnston
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 Septiembre 1934
    ... ... issued in accordance with a resolution of the town council ... duly adopted; it certified that everything necessary ... 8, § 7, of the Constitution, provides that no city or town in ... this state shall incur ... [175 S.E. 822] ... School District, 149 S.C. 78, 146 S.E ... 675; Stone" v. City Council, 113 S.C. 407, 102 S.E ...        \xC2" ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT