Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forest Lake

Decision Date15 December 1954
Docket NumberNo. 16942,16942
Citation226 S.C. 349,85 S.E.2d 192
PartiesTOWN OF FOREST ACRES, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF FOREST LAKE et al., Respondents.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Belser & Belser, Irvine F. Belser, Columbia, for petitioner.

Charles F. Cooper, Columbia, for respondents.

OXNER, Justice.

This action, brought by permission in the original jurisdiction of this Court, involves a second attempt to detach a portion of the town of Forest Acres and annex same to the adjacent town of Forest Lake. Both of these small municipalities are located in Richland County and there seems to be no end to the litigation between them.

In 1952, it was sought to annex to the town of Forest Lake an area consisting of a portion of the town of Forest Acres and some contiguous territory not within the corporate limits of any municipality. The question of said annexation was submitted both to the qualified electors of the town of Forest Lake and those of the area proposed to be annexed, and resulted favorably to annexation. In an action brought by the town of Forest Acres and others, we declared the purported annexation invalid because the question was not submitted to the voters of the town of Forest Acres as a whole. Town of Forest Acres v. Seigler, 224 S.C. 166, 77 S.E.2d 900, 906. We concluded that under the statutes of this state, a portion of one municipality may not be annexed to another without submitting the question of said detachment to the voters of the municipality, the area of which is to be reduced, as provided by Section 7232(1) of the 1942 Code, now Section 47-23 of the 1952 Code. Under this section, in order to reduce the corporate limits of a municipality, a petition asking for such reduction must be signed by a majority of the resident freeholders of said town, after which a majority of the qualified electors must vote in favor of releasing the territory involved. In other words, we held that it was the intention of the Legislature that the voters of the entire town should have a voice in determining the question of whether any portion of its area should be detached. We closed our opinion with the following statement: 'It may be true that only in rare instances will the voters of a town or city agree to release a portion of its territory so as to permit annexation thereof to another municipality, but this is a matter for consideration by the legislature and not by the courts.'

Following the foregoing decision, which was rendered on September 28, 1953, the General Assembly in March, 1954, 48 St. at L. 1494, passed an act, to be added as Section 47-19.2 of the 1952 Code, which is in part as follows:

'In all counties of this State having a city with a population in excess of eighty-five thousand according to the 1950 census, if the entire area proposed to be annexed to a municipality under this section belongs to a corporation, such area may be annexed on the petition of the corporation to the council of the municipality. If all or part of the area proposed to be annexed is in an incorporated municipality, which has no outstanding municipal bonds or contractual obligations which are, or will become, payable out of property taxes levied, or to be levied, against any property in the area proposed to be annexed, the annexation may be made as provided in this section, and the corporation owning the area proposed to be annexed may stipulate terms of consolidation in its petition. Any such annexation under this section shall be complete and effective upon the grant and approval of the petition by the council of the municipality being enlarged, and no election provided for under any other section of this article shall be required for any annexation under this act when the entire area proposed to be annexed belongs to a corporation only.'

There then follows a proviso to the effect that before granting such petition, the council of the municipality being enlarged shall, after publishing a notice thereof, hold a public hearing upon the question of whether or not the petition for annexation shall be approved, and if within ten days thereafter, at least ten freehold electors of said municipality shall file a written petition requesting an election, the municipal authorities shall call an election on the question of said annexation at which a vote of the majority shall be controlling.

The foregoing act became effective upon its approval by the Governor on March 5, 1954. On the same day, on petition of the Forest Land Company, a corporation, the council of the town of Forest Lake, after notice published the previous day, purported, under the authority of said act, to annex a certain area within the town of Forest Acres owned by said corporation. On March 30, 1954, a further ordinance was passed wherein, after reciting that no objection had been expressed and no election requested on the question of annexation, the ordinance of March 5th was readopted and the area involved declared to be annexed to the town of Forest Lake, effective as of March 5, 1954. It appears that the area sought to be detached from the town of Forest Acres is substantially the same as that involved in the annexation proceedings which we declared invalid in Town of Forest Acres v. Seigler, supra.

Thereafter this action was brought by the town of Forest Acres for the purpose of having declared unconstitutional the 1954 act under which the purported annexation was made. It was further contended that even if the act is valid, the procedure followed was not in accord with its terms.

It is well settled that in the absence of constitutional limitations, the legislature has plenary power over municipalities, including the right to regulate the manner in which the boundaries of such governmental units may be extended or diminished. Unless forbidden by the organic law, the Legislature may authorize the annexation to one municipality of all or part of another municipality adjacent to it and this may be done without the consent of the inhabitants of the territory annexed, or the municipality to which it is annexed. Harrell v. City of Columbia, 216 S.C. 346, 58 S.E.2d 91; Town of Forest Acres v. Seigler, supra, 224 S.C. 166, 77 S.E.2d 900. The town of Forest Acres concedes the soundness of the foregoing principles, but contends that under our Constitution such power can only be exercised by a general law. It is argued that the challenged act is legislation of the sort prohibited by Article 3, Section 34 of the Constitution in that it is a special law undertaking to amend and alter the charter of the town of Forest Acres and is a special law where a general law can be made applicable. It is further asserted that the act is obnoxious to Article 8, Section 1 of the Constitution in that certain municipalities are vested with powers and subject to restrictions unlike other municipal corporations of the same class.

By the express terms of the act in controversy, it applies only to counties containing a city with a population of over 85,000 according to the 1950 census. It is conceded that the only county in South Carolina having a city of that size is Richland County. Its county seat, which is also the capitol of the state, has a population, according to the 1950 census of 86,914. It also contains four other incorporated towns, which are much smaller. It is stated in the brief of the town of Forest Acres that of the fie municipalities...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Mills Mill v. Hawkins
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 19 d3 Junho d3 1957
    ...thereof, and to be heard concerning rates and service charges proposed to be fixed by the commissioners. Cf. Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forst Lake, 226 S.C. 349, 85 S.E.2d 192. Can the 1955 act be sustained, then, as a special provision in such general law within the meaning of Article......
  • Timmons v. South Carolina Tricentennial Commission
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 d2 Julho d2 1970
    ...not by the letter, but by the spirit and practical operation of the act. Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forest Lake, 226 S.Ct. 349, 85 S.E.2d 192.' The legislation in Elliott prohibited the sale of fireworks 'in a county containing a municipality having a population of over sixty five thou......
  • Martin v. Condon
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 d2 Novembro d2 1995
    ...operation of the act as well as its form. Elliott v. Sligh, 233 S.C. 161, 103 S.E.2d 923 (1958); Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forest Lake, 226 S.C. 349, 85 S.E.2d 192 (1954). A local option law does not escape scrutiny as special legislation simply because it offers the same option to al......
  • State ex rel. Condon v. City of Columbia, 25065.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 d1 Fevereiro d1 2000
    ...220 S.C. 59, 65, 66 S.E.2d 427, 429-30 (1951). The State's reliance in a portion of its argument on Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forest Lake, 226 S.C. 349, 85 S.E.2d 192 (1954), is misplaced. In that case, the Court nullified Forest Lake's annexation proceeding after concluding that a me......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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