Gordon v. Bell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Gordon v. Bell

108 S.E. 186, 116 S.C. 466, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 123

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 1, 1921

Docket10693

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 186 (Gordon v. Bell) 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

Gordon v. Bell, 108 S.E. 186, 116 S.C. 466, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 123 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an action for injunction, is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Gary. The only question raised by the appeal is whether children can be legally transferred from one school district within the same county without the consent of the trustees of the district to which the transfer is sought to be made. The solution of this question depends on whether the Act of 1912, (Act Feb. 23, 1912, [27 St. at Large, p. 619]) with reference to the transfer of the children from one school district to another was repealed by the passage of the Act of 1919, (Act Feb. 21, 1919, [31 St. at Large, p. 63]) on the same subject. The question since the Act of 1919, is purely academic, except for the costs of this cáse, and that is practically the only substance now in the case.

1, 2 His Honor, Judge Gary, held that the amendatory Act of 1912 was a valid enactment and should be given force, unless it was subsequently repealed by the Act of 1919, and that the Act of 1919 did not repeal the Act of 1912; that there was no expression in the Act of 1919 indicating an intention to repeal the Act of 1912, and there was no inconsistency or repugnancy between the two acts. The two acts must be read together and effect given to each unless they are totally inconsistent. The statutes in question relate to the same subject-matter. No intention is expressed in the latter act to repeal the former act. They must be construed together and effect given to each.

*469 The passage of the Act of 1919 was an amendment to Section 1756, which had been heretofore amended by the Act of 1912, and was in effect simply another amendment, and was in no manner inconsistent with or in- conflict with the same. The acts relate to different things. The amendments are the law of the subject. One is not dependent on the other. Both stand, and the objects and provisions sought in one amendment are not affected by the other amendment.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur. Mr. Justice Cothran disqualified.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an action for injunction, is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Gary. The only question raised by the appeal is whether children can be legally transferred from one school district within the same county without the consent of the trustees of the district to which the transfer is sought to be made. The solution of this question depends on whether the Act of 1912, (Act Feb. 23, 1912, [27 St. at Large, p. 619]) with reference to the transfer of the children from one school district to another was repealed by the passage of the Act of 1919, (Act Feb. 21, 1919, [31 St. at Large, p. 63]) on the same subject. The question since the Act of 1919, is purely academic, except for the costs of this cáse, and that is practically the only substance now in the case.

1, 2 His Honor, Judge Gary, held that the amendatory Act of 1912 was a valid enactment and should be given force, unless it was subsequently repealed by the Act of 1919, and that the Act of 1919 did not repeal the Act of 1912; that there was no expression in the Act of 1919 indicating an intention to repeal the Act of 1912, and there was no inconsistency or repugnancy between the two acts. The two acts must be read together and effect given to each unless they are totally inconsistent. The statutes in question relate to the same subject-matter. No intention is expressed in the latter act to repeal the former act. They must be construed together and effect given to each.

*469 The passage of the Act of 1919 was an amendment to Section 1756, which had been heretofore amended by the Act of 1912, and was in effect simply another amendment, and was in no manner inconsistent with or in- conflict with the same. The acts relate to different things. The amendments are the law of the subject. One is not dependent on the other. Both stand, and the objects and provisions sought in one amendment are not affected by the other amendment.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur. Mr. Justice Cothran disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 186, 116 S.C. 466, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-bell-sc-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack