Thomas v. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1915
• Docket Number: 9068.
• Citation: 85 S.E. 50,100 S.C. 478
• Parties: THOMAS v. SPARTANBURG RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

85 S.E. 50

100 S.C. 478

THOMAS v. SPARTANBURG RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO. ET AL.

No. 9068.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 16, 1915

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; S.W G. Shipp, Judge.

Action by A. J. Thomas against the Spartanburg Railway, Gas & Electric Company and South Carolina Light, Power & Railways Company. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Gwynn & Hannon, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Sanders & De Pass, of Spartanburg, for respondents.

HYDRICK J.

This action was brought to recover the penalties provided in section 3949 of the Civil Code for the failure of defendant to provide its cars with fenders, as required by section 3950.

By demurrer to the complaint, defendant attacked the constitutionality of the statute on two grounds: (1) That it denies to it the equal protection of the laws; and (2) that it contravenes subdivision 9 of section 34 of article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that, "where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." The first ground was overruled, but the court held the statute void on the second ground, saying:

"There is no good reason why the Legislature should require fenders to be placed upon cars operated north of a line ten miles north of and parallel to the thirty-fourth meridian."

After some diversity of opinion, it has been definitely settled that, while it is primarily for the Legislature to decide whether a general law can be made applicable, just as it decides its constitutional power to enact all statutes, it is, nevertheless, ultimately a judicial question. Barfield v. Mercantile Co., 85 S.C. 186, 67 S.E 158; Tisdale v. Scarborough, 99 S.C. 366, 83 S.E 594.

But, in solving the question, the court will indulge every reasonable presumption and solve every reasonable doubt in favor of the statute. State v. Hammond, 66 S.C. 225, 44 S.E. 797; Commissioners v. Buckley, 82 S.C. 357, 64 S.E. 163. This is a well-settled and universally recognized rule upon which courts proceed in testing the constitutionality of a statute. In Hammond's Case Mr. Justice Jones said:

"In determining whether a general law can be made applicable, the judiciary should indulge every presumption in favor of the legislative act, and so it should be presumed that the Legislature by the special or local enactment thereby declared its view that the general law could not be made applicable. This conclusion, however, being to some extent at least a question of law, would no more bind the judicial department in enforcing a constitutional limitation than the legislative determination that a statute is constitutional, which is presumptively involved in the passage of every statute. * * * But the applicability of a general law is not simply a question of fact; it involves matter of law; and it is not intended by this court now to assert that, when the Legislature has said that a general law cannot be made applicable, such conclusion may be controverted by any evidence outside of what appears upon the face of the statute, and upon such matters as to which a court must take judicial cognizance. Courts will take judicial notice of the division of the state into counties, their names, their locations with respect to each other, their population as shown by the United States census, the prominent geographical features of the county, the principal water courses and their nature and location, matters of common knowledge and experience in respect to science and the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. It should be further stated that the court should not declare a statute unconstitutional unless the invalidity is manifest beyond a reasonable doubt." In State v. Burns, 73 S.C. 197, 52 S.E. 960, the same learned justice, speaking for the court, said with regard to special provisions in general laws (which are permitted by the proviso to subdivision 10 of the same section in reference to subjects not among those as to which special or local laws are expressly prohibited in the preceding subdivisions) that, as to these, there must

...