Todd v. City of Laurens

• Decision Date: 03 March 1897
• Citation: 26 S.E. 682,48 S.C. 395
• Parties: TODD v. CITY OF LAURENS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

26 S.E. 682

48 S.C. 395

TODD v. CITY OF LAURENS et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 3, 1897

Petition for injunction brought by John W. Todd against the city of Laurens, N. B. Dial, mayor, and others. Dismissed.

Ferguson & Featherstone, for petitioner.

Johnson & Richey and N. B. Dial, for respondents.

POPE J.

This is a proceeding in the original jurisdiction of this court wherein it is sought to obtain a perpetual injunction against the city of Laurens and its city council against the proposed issue by the respondents of bonds to the amount of $30,000 face value. The petition, the return, and reply will fully disclose the facts underlying the controversy, and are as follows:

"The humble petition of John W. Todd respectively shows unto your honor: (1) That he is a tax payer and free holder residing in the city of Laurens and state aforesaid, and that his name as such appears upon the tax books of the said city. (2) That the respondents, as mayor and aldermen compose the city council of the city of Laurens, a municipal corporation of this state, chartered by an act of the general assembly of the state of South Carolina entitled 'An act to incorporate the city of Laurens,' approved December 24, 1890. (3) That section 19 of the said charter contains the following provision 'That the said city council shall have power to borrow money for the public uses of the corporation by issuing from time to time, as occasion may require, the bonds of said corporation, bearing interest at a rate not to exceed seven per cent. per annum, to be paid semiannually, for an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, and for the payment of the interest, and the ultimate redemption of the principal, according to the terms of the loan, the said corporation shall be at all times liable. ***' (4) That under the authority in said provision the said city of Laurens has already incurred a large bonded indebtedness, and there is outstanding and remaining unpaid seventeen thousand and five hundred dollars of the said bonded indebtedness. (5) That the county of Laurens, of which the said city of Laurens is a part, has an outstanding and unpaid bonded indebtedness of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. (6) That the total taxable property of the said county, as shown by the assessment for state and county purposes, is four million three hundred and fifteen thousand three hundred and fifty-six dollars. (7) That the city of Laurens' proportionate part of said taxable property of the said county is five hundred and forty-three thousand one hundred fifty dollars, as shown by the assessment for state and county purposes. (8) That the assessed value of the taxable property in the city of Laurens, as shown by the assessment for city purposes, is seven hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. (9) That under and by virtue of a certain act or acts of the general assembly of the state of South Carolina, passed at the regular session of 1896, the respondents, acting as the city council of Laurens, ordered an election, upon a petition duly presented in accordance with said acts, submitting the question to the voters of said city as to whether or not the said city should incur a debt and issue bonds to the amount of thirty thousand dollars, for the purpose of erecting, or purchasing and operating, an electric and water works plant or plants, to supply the said city and its inhabitants with electric lights and water. (10) That at an election duly held for that purpose on the 10th day of September, 1896, a majority of the voters in said city voted in favor of incurring said indebtedness and issuing said bonds, and three commissioners of public works were elected as required by said act or said acts of 1896. (11) That your petitioner is informed and believes, and he so charges, that the respondents, acting as the said city council of Laurens, are about to issue the said thirty thousand dollars' worth of the said bonds, and have already arranged with certain parties to sell them said bonds when issued. (12) That your petitioner alleges that the respondents, acting as said city council of Laurens, have no right to issue and sell the said bonds, for the following reasons: First. Because the said city has already a bonded indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, of seventeen thousand and five hundred dollars, and the proposed issue of thirty thousand dollars, added to said amount, will make more indebtedness than said city has the right to incur under its charter; and your petitioner submits that the said charter is not amended or changed by the act of 1896. Second. Because your petitioner submits that under article 10, § 5, of the constitution of 1895, the said city has not the right to issue the said bonds, for the reason that the said county of Laurens, of which the said city of Laurens is a part, and the said city of Laurens, together, have already, outstanding and unpaid, one hundred and sixty-seven thousand and five hundred dollars' worth of bonds, which is more than fifteen per cent. of the taxable property of the said city, and therefore more than it is entitled to under said constitutional provision. Wherefore your petitioner prays that it be adjudged by this court that the respondents, acting as the city council of Laurens, have not the right to issue or dispose of the said thirty thousand dollars' worth of bonds for the reason above given, and that the said respondents, their agents and servants, be perpetually enjoined and restrained from so doing; and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper; and your petitioner will ever pray."

On the 20th day of January, 1897, this court, on hearing the foregoing petition, duly verified, granted an order requiring the respondents to make return to said petitioner, and granting a temporary restraining order. Therefore the respondents made the following return, omitting the formal facts: "The respondents named above make return to the rule issued herein 20th January, 1897, and show for cause why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted as follows: (1) They admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of said petitioner's petition. (2) The said respondents allege that a part, viz. nine thousand dollars, of the seventeen thousand and five hundred dollars' indebtedness alleged in paragraph 4 of the said petition, is a debt of and owing by the school district of the town of Laurens was established and made a body politic by an act of the general assembly of the state of South Carolina entitled 'An act to provide for the establishment of a new school district in the county of Laurens, and to authorize the levy and collection of a school tax therein,' approved December 19, 1887; that under and by virtue of the said act of 1887, and amendments thereto approved December 24, 1890, and December 16, 1891 and under and by virtue of an act entitled 'An act to authorize the board of trustees of the school district of the town of Laurens to submit to the qualified voters the question of issuing bonds for the use of said school district,' approved December 24, 1891, the said school district of the town of Laurens created said bonded indebtedness of nine thousand dollars. (3) The said respondents allege, on information and belief, that the outstanding indebtedness of the city of Laurens, created for the public use of said city, is now only eight thousand and five hundred dollars. (4) The said respondents allege that the said school district of the town of Laurens embraces the city of Laurens. (5) The said respondents allege, on information and belief, that the act of the general assembly entitled 'An act to authorize all cities and towns to build, equip, and operate a system of water works and electric lights and to issue bonds to meet the costs of same,' approved March 2, 1896, is an amendment to the act chartering the city of Laurens, approved December 24, 1890. (6) The said respondents allege, on information and belief, that the city of Laurens is only liable for said city's pro rata share of he bonded indebtedness alleged in paragraph 5 of said petition, which pro rata share amounts to about three and one-half per cent. of the taxable value of the...