Pursley v. Inman

54 S.E.2d 800, 215 S.C. 243, 1949 S.C. LEXIS 84
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedAugust 11, 1949
Docket16250
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 54 S.E.2d 800 (Pursley v. Inman) 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
Pursley v. Inman, 54 S.E.2d 800, 215 S.C. 243, 1949 S.C. LEXIS 84 (S.C. 1949).

Opinion

Fishburne, Justice.

The appeal in this case requires the interpretation of a special Constitutional Amendment relating to' the bonded indebtedness of school districts in York County, with special reference to Clover Consolidated High School District No. 39. This amendment, to Article X, Section 5 of the State Constitution, was duly submitted to the voters at the general election held in South Carolina on November 2, 1948. The election resulted favorably by a majority of those voting, and subsequently, at the 1949 session of the General Assembly, the amendment was duly ratified and became a part of the Constitution of this State. The amendment in question reads as follows:

.“Provided, That the limitations as to bonded indebtedness imposed by this Section shall not apply to any school district in York County, such school districts being hereby expressly authorized to incur bonded indebtedness to an amount not exceeding Fifty (50%) per centum of the assessed value of all taxable property therein, where the proceeds of sale of such bonds are to be applied solely to the purchase of additional real estate for school purposes, the erection, maintenance, improvement and equipment of school buildings in any such school districts; and the indebtedness of any other municipal corporation or political division or subdivision in York County shall not be considered in determining the power of any such school district to incur bonded indebtedness within the limits hereby imposed, nor shall the indebtedness of any such school district or districts be considered in determining the power of any other municipal corporation or political division or subdivision in York County to incur bonded indebtedness.”

Clover Consolidated Pligh School District No. 39 is a high school district composed of the following common *246 school districts in York County, to wit: Clover School District No. 37, Bethel School District No. 3, Bowling Green School District No. 22, and Bethany School District No. 2. It was created by action of the respective boards of trustees of the four named common school districts with the view of establishing a centralized high school in the town of Clover, in York County. The proceedings in establishing this high school district were taken pursuant to the provisions of Article III, Chapter 122, Volume 3, Code of Daws of South Carolina 1942. •

Subsequent -to the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment to Article X, Section 5 hereinabove mentioned, the General Assembly enacted at its 1949 session an Act entitled:

“An Act to Validate the Formation of Clover Consolidated High School District No. 39, of York County, to Authorize the Trustees of Said Clover Consolidated High School District to Conduct an Election to Submit to the Qualified Electors of Said District, the Question of the Issuance of Bonds of Said District in the Principal Amount of not Exceeding Three Hundred Fifty Thousand ($350,-000.00) Dollars, to Authorize the Issuance of Said Bonds Should Said Election Result Favorably, to Provide for the Expenditure of the Proceeds of Said Boixds, and to Provide for the Payment of Said Bonds.”

By the foregoing Act, the General Assembly ratified and validated all proceedings incident to the establishment of Clover Consolidated High School District, and empowered its trustees to issue general obligation bonds of the district in an amount not exceeding Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($350,000.00) Dollars, if the election authorized and required by the terms of the Act resulted favorably to the issuance of bonds. Thereafter the trustees of Clover Consolidated High School District ordered the election, which was held on March 15, 1949. .At this election the following question was submitted to the qualified electors of the high school district:

*247 “Shall the Board of Trustees of Clover Consolidated High School District No. 39, of York County, be Empowered to Issue, Either as a Single Issue or from Time to Time as Several Separate Issues, Bonds of Said School District to the Amount of Not Exceeding Three Hundred Fifty Thousand ($350,000.00) Dollars, Whose Proceeds shall be Expended for the Construction and Equipment of Buildings to be used for High School Purposes and to the Cost of the Acquisition of Real Estate Necessary Therefor ?”

The election resulted favorably on the question submitted, and on March 16, 1949, the trustees met and adopted a resolution declaring the result of the election and providing for the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the newly created district in the sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($350,000.00) Dollars. This appeal does not question the regularity of the proceedings had as to their being in strict conformity with the requirements of the special legislative enactment under which they were taken.

The plaintiff (appellant here), who is a taxpayer and resident of Clover Consolidated High School District, brought this action seeking to enjoin the issuance of such part of the Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($350,000.00) Dollars of bonds as will exceed the Constitutional debt limit of the district as authorized by the provisions of Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution as that section was originally worded. That section, without amendment, provides, among other things, that “The bonded debt of any county, township, school district, municipal corporation or political division or subdivision of this State shall never exceed eight per centum of the assessed value of all the taxable property therein.”

Appellant in his complaint alleged that the special Constitutional Amendment which we have quoted, has no application to Clover Consolidated High School District No. 39, or any other high school district in York County, for the reason that the Constitutional Amendment relates solely to *248 the debt limitation of common school districts in York County.

Respondents, who constitute the Board of Trustees of Clover Consolidated High School District, demurred to the complaint, and when the cause came on to be heard the trial court held that the Constitutional Amendment did apply to Clover Consolidated High School District No. 39, and sustained the demurrer.

Appellant contends that the Constitutional Amendment of 1949, properly construed, relates only to common school districts. The respondents argue that the Amendment, with its specific wording, “any school district in York County,” must be given its normal and usual meaning, and must be deemed to include and embrace both common school districts and high school districts. We are in full accord with respondents’ contention.

It will be noted that Article X, Section 5 hereinabove quoted, as originally worded and unamended, with reference to bonded debt limitation refers to “any * * * school district,” and limits such bonded debt to eight per cent, of the assessed value of the taxable property therein. The Constitutional Amendment of 1949 provides that the limitations as to bonded indebtedness imposed by Article X, Section 5 “shall not apply to any school district in York County * * *.” And goes on to expressly authorize such school districts to incur, bonded indebtedness to an amount not exceeding fifty per cent, of the assessed value of all taxable property therein.

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

Related

Smith v. Commissioners of Public Works
441 S.E.2d 331 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1994)
McPherson v. City of Dawson
148 S.E.2d 298 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
WATSON v. Watson
95 S.E.2d 266 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1956)
Talton v. Behncke
199 F.2d 471 (Seventh Circuit, 1952)
Nesbitt v. Gettys
64 S.E.2d 651 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 S.E.2d 800, 215 S.C. 243, 1949 S.C. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pursley-v-inman-sc-1949.