Yonce v. Lybrand, 19026
| Decision Date | 12 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19026,19026 |
| Citation | 254 S.C. 14,173 S.E.2d 148 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | I. D. YONCE, Appellant, v. Charles E. LYBRAND, Gene Heuet and Walter Morgan, as the County Council of Edgefield County, Respondents. |
J. Roy Berry, Johnston, W. Ray Berry, Columbia, for appellant.
Charles W. Coleman, Joe F. Anderson, and John F. Byrd, Jr., Edgefield, for respondents.
This is a taxpayer's action to enjoin the issuance of bonds by Edgefield County because of alleged illegality in the referendum by which issuance of the bonds has been approved. The circuit court sustained the legality of the election, and the taxpayer has appealed.
By Act No. 151 of 1968 the General Assembly authorized issuance of bonds by the county council for Edgefield County in the sum of $400,000.00 for the construction of a hospital, and the levy of a tax not exceeding seven mills for the operation of the hospital, provided that the bond issue and tax levy should be approved by qualified electors of the county in the general election to be held in November, 1968. The form of questions to be printed on the referendum ballots was specified, and the Act further provided:
A notice of the referendum was published in The Edgefield Advertiser of October 23 and of October 30, and in the Ridge Citizen of October 24 and October 30. Both publications are Edgefield County weekly newspapers. The general election in 1968 was held on November 5th.
The complaint alleges that the referendum was illegal because the first publication of the required notice was less than fifteen days prior to the election, and the notice as published failed to state the qualifications imposed upon persons voting and failed to list the polling places. These facts are admitted. However, a notice of the general election at which the referendum was held was also published in the same editions of the two newspapers, and this notice did state that each elector would be required to present a registration certificate (green) in order to qualify to vote. This notice also included a list of the precincts and the names of the managers.
While it would have been far better if the officials in question had complied strictly with the rather simple directions of the statute, we must agree with the circuit court that the result of the election was not affected or rendered doubtful in any way by the deviations relied upon. It is apparent from the record that the body of electors was well advised of the election and that it resulted in a full and fair expression of their will. The four copies of Edgefield County newspapers, in which the notice of referendum was published and which are a part of the record, are crowded with political advertisements looking toward the general election in which there was strong voter interest because of many important offices to be filled. Some eighteen references to the hospital referendum appear in these two issues of the two papers, including news articles and political advertisements for and against. A rather vigorous campaign for support by opponents and proponents of the proposal is evident and resulted in higher than usual voter participation. Of 4,745 registered voters of the county, 80% Cast ballots on the bond issue and 76% Voted on the tax levy. In each instance a substantial majority of those voting supported the construction and operation of a hospital.
The time and place of this election and the questions to be submitted to the electors were all fixed by statute. The required publication of an appropriate notice was not jurisdictional, but was to insure public notice of the election, which had been authorized by the legislature. No inference may be drawn from the record that a single vote was lost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arras v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 14
...but failed to include location where election was being held because voters had actual notice of election); Yonce v. Lybrand, 254 S.C. 14, 15–18, 173 S.E.2d 148 (1970) (publication of notice less than fifteen days prior to referendum, as required by statute, was cured by newspaper articles ......
-
Arras v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 14
...D. & C. 215, 229-30 (1948) (failure to set forth place where election was to be held did not invalidate referendum); Yonce v. Lybrand, 254 S.C. 14, 17, 173 S.E.2d 148 (1970) (failure to comply strictly with statutory notice provision did not invalidate election when "[n]o inference may be d......
-
Arras v. Reg'l Sch.
...but failed to include location where election was being held because voters had actual notice of election); Yonce v. Lybrand, 254 S.C. 14, 15-18, 173 S.E.2d 148 (1970) (publication of notice less than fifteen days prior to referendum, as required by statute, was cured by newspaper articles ......
-
Denman v. City of Columbia, Opinion No. 26792 (S.C. 3/24/2010)
...as bond referenda often call for shorter periods of time than the sixty days notice at issue in the instant matter. Yonce v. Lybrand, 254 S.C. 14, 173 S.E.2d 148 (1970) (noting a vote on a bond referendum required fifteen days notice to the public); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 4-11-265(D)(1) ......