Martin v. School District

35 S.E. 517, 57 S.C. 125, 1900 S.C. LEXIS 33
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 30, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 S.E. 517 (Martin v. School District) 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
Martin v. School District, 35 S.E. 517, 57 S.C. 125, 1900 S.C. LEXIS 33 (S.C. 1900).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Pope.

This is an action in the original jurisdiction of this Court, wherein the petitioner seeks a perpetual injunction against the defendants above named to prevent the- levy and collection of a tax upon the personal and real property, situate and being within the corporate limits of the town of Daurens, for the support and maintenance of public schools within said school district. In support of his application, the petitioner alleges that on the 23 d day of December, in the year 1887, the legislature of'the ■State of South Carolina passed an act, which was duly approved by the governor, whereby the area within the town of Daurens was created a body politic and corporate under the name of the School District of Daurens, for the purpose of maintaining public schools in said town of Daurens; that said the School district of Daurens should be governed by a board of trustees; that in addition to .the capitation tax upon the citizens of said town, and also of the two mill tax upon all property of said district, under the power of the Constitution of 1868, there might be levied' a tax of two mills upon all the property, real and personal, within the corporate limits of the town of Daurens, to be levied by the auditor for Daurens County and to be collected by the treasurer of Daurens County, at the same time and in the same manner as taxes for the State and county are levied and collected, provided that twenty taxpayers should unite in a petition to the board of trustees of said the School District of Daurens for them to call a meeting on a day and place, and have certain of all the taxpayers living within the cor[127]*127porate limits of the town of Laurens, at some time before the 30th day of June of each year, to consider what tax should be levied and collected for said school district — two weeks notice of said place, time and purpose of said meeting of taxpayers- having been given in at least one newspaper -published in said school district, and such notice also to be posted in two public places. Such were the provisions of the act of December 23d, 1887 (see XIX., vol. Statutes at Large, 1050). By the provisions of the act passed by the legislature of the State on the 24th December, 1890 (see XX., vol. of Statutes at Large, 935), the original act was so amended that a tax not to exceed four mills was authorized to be levied and collected from the real and personal property within the corporate limits of Laurens, to support said public schools in said town of Laurens. The act passed on the 16th December, 1891 (see XX., vol. Statutes at Large, page 1410), only amended the original act as to the number of trustees; that a petition of twenty taxpayers was addressed to the gentlemen named in the caption as school trustees to call such meeting of the taxpayers as was contemplated by the original act, and that after a notice had been published in both newspapers, and posted on the east and west doors of the county court house for such meeting to be held' at 11 o’clock in the morning of the 26th June, 1899, such meeting was held, being composed of about two dozen persons, who voted a tax of 2 1-4 mills for school purposes; that the proceedings of such alleged meeting were iregular, null and void, because no one was required to show or prove that he resided within the said school district, or that he owned real or personal property therein, or that he was duly registered, or that he had paid his taxes, or was of age, or was otherwise qualified to vote, and that no ballot was cast whereby said tax was attempted to be agreed upon, but that whatever was done was done viva voce; that petitioner alleges that a large number of persons participating in said meeting wqre disqualified from participating therein for the reasons enumerated in the preceding paragraphs; [128]*128that W. L. Ferguson, as auditor, has assessed said property, real and personal, within the corporate limits of the town of Laurens, and that Messers Babb is collecting said 2 1-4 mills taxes for such school district; and that the petitioner alleges that the three acts hereinbefore referred to, in regard to such school district, are unconstitutional, null and void, because in conflict with amendments of the U. S. Constitution, articles V. and XIV., and also in conflict with the following of the Constitution adopted by the State in 1868, to wit: article I., sections 14, 31, 32, 36, 37; article VIII., sections 1, 2, 8; and article X., section 5; also in conflict with the following of the Constitution adopted in the year 1895, to wit: article I., sections 5, 7, 10 and 17; also article II., sections 1, 3, 4, 12 ; also article VIII., sections 3, 6 and 7; and also article XVII., sections 11, and subdivisions 1 and 3.

The reply of the defendants to this terrible arrangement by the petitioner, alleged a full compliance with the provisions of the several acts pertaining to the School District of Laurens, as to the call by twenty taxpayers upon the board of trustees for a public meeting to consider the matter of an , additional tax to support the public schools in the School District of Laurens; that such public meeting was called for ir o’clock in the morning of 26th June, 1899, after two weeks notice of such meeting published in the two newspapers published at Laurens Court House, and also a notice of the same posted on the doors at the west and east of the county court house, located in the town of Laurens, and that the petitioner, Benjamin E. Martin, was present at such meeting, participated in the discussion as to the amount of the tax to be levied — himself moving to make the same two mills, which proposition was voted down; and that the motion to make the tax 21-4 mills was unanimous except his vote in the negative; and also that every person who participated in such meeting was a qualified voter of said town of Laurens, and the owner of real or personal property. That by reason of these matters, the petitioner is estopped from raising any question as to the regularity of the proceedings [129]*129of such meeting and also as to the constitutionality of such act of the General Assembly regulating such school district.

1 We hold that the petitioner cannot now question the regularity of the proceedings of the meeting of taxpayers of the town of Laurens, which ordered this 2 1-4 mills tax; but we would not go so far as to the constitutionality of the acts of the legislature hereinbefore named. As to this last phase of petitioner’s contention, we are obliged to say that almost all that the petitioner has done to show the three acts of our General Assembly, regulating the Laurens School District, to be unconstitutional, has been a bare recital by article and section of the United States Constitution and the two State Constitutions adopted in the years 1868 and 1895, respectively, which it is contended will show the legislation in question to be invalid, because unconstitutional.

2 We may begin our reference to these constitutional difficulties by saying that the Constitution of 1895, by the article XI., section 5, provides: “Section 5.

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

Related

Lowden v. King
78 P.2d 29 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1938)
Beckham v. Gallemore
93 S.E. 884 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
State Ex Rel. Birchmore v. State Board of Canvassers
59 S.E. 145 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1907)
Dehay v. County Commissioners
44 S.E. 790 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 S.E. 517, 57 S.C. 125, 1900 S.C. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-school-district-sc-1900.