Duncan v. City of Charleston

39 S.E. 265, 60 S.C. 532, 1901 S.C. LEXIS 123
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJune 20, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 39 S.E. 265 (Duncan v. City of Charleston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duncan v. City of Charleston, 39 S.E. 265, 60 S.C. 532, 1901 S.C. LEXIS 123 (S.C. 1901).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Pope.

These actions, in the original jurisdiction of this Court, have for their common object the perpetual injunction by this Court of the city council of Charleston from entering into the contract with the Charleston Light and' Water Company in regard to the latter furnishing to the former a water supply from the stream known as Goose Creek, at a distance of about sixteen miles from the city of Charleston, and at a point situate in Berkeley County. By the order passed by this Court on the 3d day of June, 1901, the two actions were blended and1 ordered to be heard together.

The plaintiffs in each action are citizens and taxpayers of the city of Charleston, and have a status in this Court *535 under the present Constitution of the State -and the laws passed by the General Assembly of this State to enforce such constitutional right, always provided they can show themselves entitled to the extraordinary writ of a perpetual injunction to restrain the invasion of their rights by the defendants, respondents. The defendants are corporations under the laws of this State, and may sue and be sued in all of our Courts under their respective corporate names.

It is alleged in the pleadings that the city council of Charleston is about to execute a contract under its corporate seal to and with the Charleston Light and* Water Company, whereby it binds the city of Charleston for the period of fifty years to allow the said Light and Water Company to lay its pipes and mains in and under its streets, alleys and ways, so that it may furnish water for public and private use and purposes, for the said period of fifty years next ensuing, upon the execution of said contract by the said two parties, defendant, and that as a compensation therefor the city council of Charleston will pay to said Charleston Light and Water Company $42,000 for each and every year embraced in the said period of fifty years, and will further allow said Charleston Light and Water Company to collect from its citizens the sums of money laid down in a.schedule of prices for the use of water by its citizens; and all these concessions are bottomed upon the expenditure by the said Charleston Light and Water Company of large sums of money from its own treasury, to wit: $100,000, and of about $1,500,000 to be realized from the sale of its coupon bonds — at 95 cents of the par value of said bonds — said bonds to mature in fifty years, to bear interest at five per cent, per annum, and to be secured in their payment by a mortgage of all the property, immediate or prospective, of said Charleston Light and Water Company. An option is provided in said contract for •the purchase by the city of Charleston of all the property of said Charleston Light and Water Company, whenever said city shall be clothed by law with the power to make such purchase on terms which are embodied in said contract. It *536 is alleged that for a favorable consideration the American Pipe Manufacturing Company have been induced to lend a helping hand to this enterprise, and carefulfy prepared specifications for the system of water works as contemplated in the contract by the Charleston Light and Water Company with the city of Charleston is attached to the said contract.

It is also sought by the petitioners or plaintiffs to enjoin the issue of any bonds by the said Charleston Light and Water Company in furtherance of the alleged contract between it and the city council of Charleston. We need not pause to enlarge upon the right of these petitioners to invoke the aid of this Court in its original jurisdiction to prevent the alleged invasion of their rights as taxpayers of the city of Charleston by the alleged contract between the respondents. To better understand this contention, we deem it proper to insert the alleged contract. It is as follows:

“This agreement made and entered into this day of , A. D. 1901, by and between the Charleston Light and Water Company, a corporation duly authorized by and under the laws of the State of South Carolina, party of the first part, and the city council of Charleston, of the said State, party of the second part, witnesseth:

“I. First. In consideration of the promises and covenants of the party of the second part, hereinafter set forth, the party of the first part hereby covenants and agrees:

“1. That it will build and equip, or cause to be built and equipped in a thorough and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the American Pipe Manufacturing Company, of Philadelphia, Penn., and identified by the signature of the parties hereto, a copy of which specification is hereto annexed, a system of water works complete, of the capacity heinafter guaranteed; the said system contemplatingthe purchase of the plant of the present water works company, and the use of the same so far as it may be available, the taking of water from a point on Goose Creek, in the county of Berkeley, in the State aforesaid, the filtration of said water, and the conveyance to and *537 the distribution throughout the city of Charleston by means of suitable pipes and1 mains of the said water when so filtered; it being understood and agreed, however, that the party of the first part shall have the right to substitute a 24" main for the 30" provided for in said specifications, and that with the consent of the board of water commissioners, hereinafter appointed, said plans and specifications may be otherwise modified or altered by the party of the first part: Provided, The said modifications and alterations shall not be such as to impair the efficiency or capacity of the plant contemplated' in said plans and specifications.

“2. The work of constructing said plant shall begin within thirty days from' the date- of these presents, and said plant “shall be fully and finally completed, and ready for use and operation within twelvemonths of the date hereof: Provided, however, That if the party of the first part shall be prevented from beginning or prosecuting and completing the said work within the time herein agreed upon, by reason of the act of God', the public enemy, by strikes, by injunction or other legal proceedings, by municipal, state or national interference, or by failure of the party of the second1 part to comply with its part of the contract, the time during which the said party may be so delayed or prevented from beginning, prosecuting or completing said work, shall be added to the said period of thirty days or twelve months, as the case may be, hereinbefore fixed for the beginning and the completion of the said plant.

“3. The said system of water works to be built, as aforesaid, in accordance with said plans and specifications, and of such detailed1 plans and specifications as shall, from time to time, be furnished by the party of the first part, shall be constructed, equipped and completed according to the plans and specifications, and the board of water commissioners of the city of Charleston, hereinafter appointed', shall at all times have the right of inspecting, for the purpose of determining whether said plant has been so constructed, and of ascertaining the progress of the said work, and the quantity and *538

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Town of Myrtle Beach v. Suber
81 S.E.2d 352 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1954)
GILBERT v. McLEOD INFIRMARY
64 S.E.2d 524 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Edwards v. Osborne
11 S.E.2d 260 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1940)
City of Georgetown v. Elliott
95 F.2d 774 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
Marchant v. Wannamaker
180 S.E. 350 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1935)
Anderson v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.
178 S.E. 819 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1934)
Leaphart v. National Surety Co.
166 S.E. 415 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1932)
Thompson v. Christopher Trustees
139 S.E. 178 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Lillard v. Melton
87 S.E. 421 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1915)
McMahan v. Jones
77 S.E. 1022 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1913)
Fowler v. Town Council of Fountain Inn
73 S.E. 626 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912)
McCallum v. Grier
68 S.E. 466 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 S.E. 265, 60 S.C. 532, 1901 S.C. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-city-of-charleston-sc-1901.