McIntyre v. Rogers

116 S.E. 277, 123 S.C. 334, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 54
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 12, 1923
Docket11149
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 277 (McIntyre v. Rogers) 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
McIntyre v. Rogers, 116 S.E. 277, 123 S.C. 334, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 54 (S.C. 1923).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

Action in the original jurisdiction of this' Court by a freeholder and taxpayer of the town of Hartsville to restrain the town council from guaranteeing the payment of certain certificates of indebtedness proposed to be issued. The town of Hartsville is about to issue and sell $86,000 of certificates of indebtedness, representing assessments against abutting property in the Town of Hartsville, and upon such sale to guarantee; the payment thereof at maturity. The bonded indebtedness of the municipality is now 8 per cent, of the assessed valué for taxation of the property in the town. The guaranty of the payment of these certificates will increase the indebtedness to an amount exceeding 8 per cent, of the taxable value of such property.

The one question presented for determination is whether the guaranty by the town of the payment of the proposed issue of paving certificates at maturity is in violation of Section 7, Art. 8, of the Constitution of 1895, providing that—•

“No city or town in this state shall hereafter incur any bonded debt which, including existing bonded indebtedness, shall exceed eight per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property therein,” etc.

The guaranty of the paving certificates may not be regarded as a part of the “bonded debt” or “bonded indebtedness” of the town, within the meaning of the constitutional inhibition. The point raised has been conclusively decided against the petitioner’s contention by the case of Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C., 10, 87 S. E., 421, followed and approved In Brownlee v. Brock, 107 S. C., 230, 92 S. E., 477.

*336 The motion for injunction is refused, and the petition dismissed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary, and Justices Watts and Fraser concur. Mr. Justice Coti-iran did not participate.

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

Related

Pearson v. Salt Lake County
346 P.2d 155 (Utah Supreme Court, 1959)
State Ex Rel. Roddey v. BYRNES, GOVERNOR
66 S.E.2d 33 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1951)
Marks v. City of Mandan
296 N.W. 39 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1941)
City of Georgetown v. Elliott
95 F.2d 774 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
City of Santa Fe v. First Nat. Bank in Raton
65 P.2d 857 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1937)
Clarke v. South Carolina Public Service Authority
181 S.E. 481 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1935)
Crawford v. Johnston, Governor
181 S.E. 476 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1935)
Cathcart v. City of Columbia
170 S.E. 435 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Haddon v. Cheatham, County Treasurer
159 S.E. 843 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Richards v. Moorer
150 S.E. 269 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Briggs v. Greenville County
135 S.E. 153 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
Evans v. Beattie, Comptroller General
135 S.E. 538 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.E. 277, 123 S.C. 334, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintyre-v-rogers-sc-1923.