Verner v. Muller

• Decision Date: 14 June 1911
• Citation: 89 S.C. 117,71 S.E. 654
• Parties: VERNER et al. v. MULLER et al., County Com'rs.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

89 S.C. 117

71 S.E. 654

VERNER et al.

v.MULLER et al., County Com'rs.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 14, 1911.

1. Statutes (§ 123^*) — Title — Subjects of Act—"Acquisition. "

Act Feb. 20, 1908 (25 St. at Large, p. 1431), is entitled "An act to provide for free bridges across the Congaree and Broad rivers between Columbia township, in Richland county and the county of Lexington, the acquisition thereof by Columbia township, and the issue of bonds, if approved by the electors of Columbia township, for the purpose of such acquisition." Section 7 of the act declares that authority is given to build or purchase and to maintain such bridges, etc. Held, that the word "acquisition, " as used in the title, meaning the act of getting or obtaining something already in existence or that may be brought into existence through the means employéd to acquire it, included the acquiring of a bridge by construction as well as by purchase; and hence the act was not unconstitutional as containing matter not expressedin its title, in that it authorized the construction of new bridges as well as the purchase of those already in existence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 130-132, 176-183; Dec. Dig. § 123.^2-*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 8, p. 7562.]

2. Towns (§ 52*)—Township Bonds—Election—Managers—Appointment—De Facto Officers

Act Feb. 20, 1908 (25 St. at Large, p. 1431), provided for an election to authorize or reject the issuance of township bonds to pay for certain bridges, and declared that the managers of the election should be appointed by the board of county commissioners. The managers were appointed by the chairman of the board and approved by the board, which authorized the chairman to fill any vacancy which might occur, and some vacanies were so filled, field that, though original appointment by the board was essential, those appointed in the absence of any proof of fraud or unfairness in the conduct of the election were de facto officers, and the election fairly conducted by them valid.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Towns, Cent. Dig. §§ 90-94; Dec. Dig. § 52.*]

3. Elections (§ 203*)—Polling Place—Statutes—"Near."

Civ. Code 1902, § 203, provides that at all general elections held in the state the same shall be conducted at the polling precincts fixed by law in the various counties, cities, and towns, the location of which shall be as designated, and then declares that, at the Waverly precinct, in R. county, the polling place shall be "at or near the fork of the Rice Creek spring and Camden road." Held, that it could not be said as a matter of law that a polling place located a quarter of a mile from the crossing of the stream and road was not properly located "near" such point.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 179; Dec. Dig. § 203.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4687-4690.]

4. Towns (§ 52*) — Election — Issuance op Bonds—Irregularity.

Improper location of a polling place in a precinct was insufficient to invalidate an election to determine whether township bridge bonds should be issued, where a rejection of all the votes in such precinct would not change the result.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Towns, Cent. Dig. §§ 90-94; Dec. Dig. § 52.*]

5. Towns (§ 52*)—Bonds—Election—Certifying Result.

Under Act Feb. 20, 1908 (25 St. at Large, p. 1431), authorizing an election for the issuance of bridge bonds by a township in R. county, and providing that the managers of the election shall conduct, direct, and declare the result thereof, and make returns in writing to the county board of commissioners, and that the county board shall issue the bonds if a majority of the votes cast at the election shall be in favor of issuing the same, it was not essential to the validity of the election that a certificate be filed with the Secretary of State and Governor by the board of county canvassers.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Towns, Cent. Dig. §§ 90-94; Dec Dig. § 52.*]

6. Towns (§ 52*)—Township Bonds—Statutes—Taxation.

Act Feb. 20, 1908 (25 St. at Large, p. 1431), authorizing the issuance of bonds by C. township to acquire bridges, provided that, on the issuance of the bonds or any part of the same, it should be the duty of the officers charged with the assessment, levying, and collection of taxes to levy and collect annually from all property, real and personal, within the township a sum sufficient to pay interest on the bonds, and one-twentieth of the principal to constitute a sinking fund to retire the bonds at maturity. Held, that such act sufficiently provided for the levy of a tax with which to meet the interest and sinking fund requirements when the same should become due.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Towns, Dec. Dig. § 52.*]

7. Towns (§ 52*) — Bonds — Injunction — Sinking Fund.

That a statute under which town bonds were issued did not contain a sufficient provision for the levying of a tax with which to meet the interest and sinking fund requirements when the bonds should become due was no ground for enjoining the issuance of the bonds.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Towns, Dec. Dig. § 52.*]

Petition by James S. Verner and another to enjoin W. F. Muller and others, as members of the Board of County Commissioners of Richland County, from issuing certain township bonds for bridge purposes. Injunction denied, and petition dismissed.

Weston & Aycock, for petitioners.

Clarkson & Clarkson, for respondents.

JONES, C. J. The petitioners, as taxpayers, seek to enjoin the board of county commissioners of Richland county from issuing certain coupon bonds of Columbia township in Richland county about to be issued under alleged authority of the act of February 20, 1908 (25 St at Large, p. 1431).

It is contended, first, that the act is in violation of section 17, article 3, of the Constitution, providing: "Every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title." The title of the act is: "An act to provide for free bridges across the Congaree and Broad rivers in this state, between Columbia township in Richland county and the county of Lexington, the acquisition thereof by said Columbia township, and the issue of bonds, if approved by the electors of Columbia township, for the purpose of such acquisition." Section 7 of the act provides: "That authority is hereby given to build or purchase, and to maintain said bridges, " etc. The point made is that the title authorizes only the purchase or acquisition of bridges now standing, while the body of the act permits the construction of new bridges as well as the purchase of those now standing. The mandate of the Constitution is complied with if the title states the general subject of legislation and the provisions in the body of the act are germane thereto as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Railroad, 23 S. C. 427: State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 448, 54 S. E. 607. The provision in the body of the statute is not only germane to the subject expressed in the title, but is clearly within the meaningof the words of the title. "Acquisition" is the act of getting or obtaining something, which may be already in existence, or may be brought into existence through the means employéd to acquire it, A bridge may be acquired by construction as well as by purchase. Moreover, the object was to provide free bridges. This contention cannot be sustained.

It is next alleged that the election was invalid because some of the managers were appointed by the chairman of the board of county commissioners, whereas the statute required the appointment to be made by the board. It appears that the board of county commisssioners approved all the managers, and authorized the chairman to fill any vacancies that might occur, and that the chairman made...