Watson v. City of Orangeburg
| Decision Date | 17 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17163,17163 |
| Citation | 93 S.E.2d 20,229 S.C. 367 |
| Parties | Samuel D. WATSON, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Taxpayers of the City of Orangeburg Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v. The CITY OF ORANGEBURG and W. M. Ayers, et al., Respondents-Appellants, Samuel D. WATSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Taxpayers of the City of Orangeburg Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v. The CITY OF ORANGEBURG and L. E. Miller, et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Moss & Moss, Orangeburg, for appellants-respondents.
Rosen, Horger & Sims, T. B. Bryant, Jr., F. R. Fanning, Orangeburg, for respondents-appellants.
Plaintiff, a property owner and taxpayer of the City of Orangeburg, brought an action on March 28, 1952, against twenty-four (24) other property owners of said city to collect from them certain taxes, together with interest and penalties, which he alleged they owed the said city. Joined as codefendants were the city and certain of its officials.
The complaint alleged that the city had passed certain unconstitutional and therefore void ordinances purporting to exempt the properties of the individual defendants from taxation, thereby increasing the tax burden of the plaintiff and others similarly situate; that unavailing demand had been made upon the city officials to collect from such defendants the taxes in question; and that the action was brought by the plaintiff 'for the benefit of the City of Orangeburg and on behalf of himself individually and all taxpayers of the City of Orangeburg similarly situate and in like circumstances'. It prayed judgment against the defendant delinquent taxpayers in favor of the plaintiff for the benefit of the city; preservation in such judgment of the city's tax liens; appointment of a receiver with power to foreclose such tax liens and hold the proceeds so collected subject to the further order of the court; and for such other and further relief as might be just and equitable.
On April 5, 1952, the City of Orangeburg and the official defendants served notice of motion to strike certain allegations of the complaint, and on the same date all defendants demurred upon the ground, among others, that the complaint showed misjoinder of causes of action. The motion and demurrers came on to be heard before the Honorable J. Henry Johnson, Presiding Judge, on or about November 24, 1952, and at the time of the hearing the defendants served notice of amendment of the demurrer by adding, as additional ground, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for the reason that it appeared on its face that plaintiff's right of action, if any, was by way of mandamus alone. Judge Johnson, by order dated November 24, 1952, granted the motion to strike, sustained the demurrer for misjoinder, and ordered that the action be divided into separate actions pursuant to Section 493 of the 1942 Code, Code 1952, Section 10-644, but did not require the plaintiff to serve amended pleadings. In this order he held the other grounds of demurrer to be without merit, and overruled them; and the parties to this appeal are in disagreement as to whether or not he intended thereby to pass upon the additional ground above mentioned. In his order of June 25, 1955, settling the case for appeal in that regard, Judge Johnson states that his recollection is that the demurrers ruled upon by him were those served on April 5, 1952, and that he has no recollection of having considered or ruled upon the additional ground of demurrer filed on November 24, 1952. His statement is conclusive of the matter. State v. Sessions, 225 S.C. 177, 81 S.E.2d 287; Brown v. Hill, 228 S.C. 34, 88 S.E.2d 838.
Following Judge Johnson's order, all of the defendants answered, pleading general or qualified denials and estoppel. By consent order in each case, all of the actions were referred to James F. Dreher, Esq., Special Referee, to hear and determine all issues of law and fact. At the first reference, on December 10, 1953, the parties stipulated, among other things, that the decision in the case against the City of Orangeburg and W. M. Ayers would be determinative of all the cases involving property-owner defendants stipulated or proven to be 'manufactories' within the purview of Article VIII, Section 8, of the Constitution of 1895, and that the decision in the case against the City of Orangeburg and L. E. Miller would be determinative of all of the remaining cases. At the next reference, on January 28, 1954, demurrers to the several complaints were interposed upon the same ground that had been presented as the 'additional ground' of demurrer to the complaint as it stood before Judge Johnson on November 24, 1952, towit that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for the reason that it appeared on its face that the plaintiff's right of action, if any, was by way of mandamus alone.
The Special Referee made no express ruling on the demurrers. Holding that the tax exemption ordinances in question were invalid because admittedly no election for the purpose of ratifying them had been held as required by Article VIII, Section 8, and expressing doubt that these actions were maintainable by a private individual, he found that taxes were due to the City of Orangeburg by each of the property-owner defendants in certain amounts, and recommended that the court issue an order in each case declaring the ordinances unconstitutional, directing the City of Orangeburg to collect the taxes so found to be due, and requiring the city to hold the funds so collected subject to the payment of the costs of the actions, including a proper fee for plaintiff's counsel, and holding the causes open for ascertainment of the proper amount of such fee and for such further administrative orders as might be necessary.
To this report the plaintiff, as well as the defendants Ayers, Miller and the City of Orangeburg, excepted. By their exceptions these defendants contended, inter alia, that the Special Referee should have sustained the demurrers and should have held that the court was without authority to grant the relief demanded in the complaint or that recommended by the Special Referee.
Upon the exceptions to the Special Referee's report the matter was heard before the Honorable T. B. Greneker, Presiding Judge, from whose decree of May 15, 1954, the plaintiff and the defendants Ayers, Miller and the City of Orangeburg now appeal. We quote from the decree:
'I have carefully gone over the numerous exceptions made by the plaintiff and find that they are without merit; therefore, I am overruling all of them. However, there are exceptions made by the defendant, City of Orangeburg, and some of the defendants, that have given me a great deal of concern. Generally, these exceptions are to the effect that the Court is without authority to grant the relief demanded in the complaint.
'It is contended by the plaintiff that the exceptions made by the defendant, that is, to the effect that the Court is without authority, have been decided by Judge Johnson in the demurrer previously heard and that the issue is res adjudicata. It is contended by certain defendants that the demurrer in this respect was never passed on and it was the intention of Judge Johnson to leave the question open. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to decide this contention, for the reason that if it should appear that the action is improper, then it is the duty of this Court to so find.
'The plaintiff, as an individual, based his suit on the proposition that the ordinances of the City of Orangeburg of February 14, 1947,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Livingston
...settled that one cannot present and try his case on one theory and thereafter advocate another theory on appeal. Watson v. City of Orangeburg, 229 S.C. 367, 93 S.E.2d 20, was a case in equity in which judgment for the plaintiff was reversed and it was held that whether plaintiff might have ......
-
Dowling v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 23971
...of Charleston, 27 U.S. 449, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L.Ed. 481 (1829) (power to tax is one of most essential to the state); Watson v. City of Orangeburg, 229 S.C. 367, 93 S.E.2d 20 (1956) (state taxes can be assessed only under statutory authority and power is vested in state legislature). Our gift ta......
- Kisley v. City of Falls Church
-
Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. City of Columbia
...allegations of paragraph four of the answers. Taxes can be assessed and collected only under statutory authority, Watson v. City of Orangeburg, 229 S.C. 367, 93 S.E.2d 20, and we do not understand that the city relies upon the alleged agreement with plaintiffs as the basis for the impositio......