Tisdale v. Scarborough

• Decision Date: 19 November 1914
• Citation: 83 S.E. 594,99 S.C. 377
• Parties: TISDALE ET AL. v. SCARBOROUGH ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

83 S.E. 594

99 S.C. 377

TISDALE ET AL. v. SCARBOROUGH ET AL.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 19, 1914

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lee County; T. S. Sease Judge.

Action by Edward W. Tisdale and others against Robert R. Scarborough and another for injunction. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ruffin & McGowan, of Bishopville, for appellants.

R. W McLendon and T. H. Tatum, both of Bishopville, for respondents.

GAGE J.

The appeal involves only one issue, and that of law. That issue is, Do the acts found in 27 Stats. 700, No. 401, and in 28 Stats. 37, No. 32, violate section 34, art. 3, of the Constitution of 1895? That section inter alia prohibits the General Assembly to enact special laws in cases where a general law can be made applicable. The first act, in effect, undertook to prescribe how cotton seed should be sold in Chester, Lancaster, and Orangeburg. The second act undertook to exclude therefrom Orangeburg, and to add thereto Lee. This appeal comes from Lee. The circuit court there held the law to be repugnant to the Constitution. We are of the opinion that the court was right.

The appellant's initial contention is that the General Assembly, and not the courts, must judge if a general law can be made applicable. There is good authority for that view the issue is one upon which opinion in this state has not been uniform, but it has now been settled that the courts must judge that issue. Barfield v. Mercantile Co., 85 S.C. 186, 67 S.E. 158, and cases cited.

There was a proximate reason for section 34, and that reason is manifest from the twelfth paragraph of the section. The eight subjects named in succession by the section are those of common, yet formal, interest; they demand frequent action by the General Assembly, and they are susceptible of a common and uniform rule. The Constitution, therefore, made it the duty of the General Assembly to enact such a law that these subjects might, by formal action, range themselves under its provisions. Thereby a better law would be enacted, and thereby the state would be saved the expense of a multiplicity of acts on one subject.

The statutes in question may not be justified under the proviso of paragraph 12. It was wisely suggested in Dean v Spartanburg, 59 S.C. 113, 37 S.E. 226, that a proviso would not be so construed as to nullify the body of the law. The Constitution refers to "general laws" and "special laws" and "special provisions in general laws." But the last is not a class by itself; it is only the part of a general law. If the law be general, then without the proviso a special provision, or any other lawful...