State ex rel. C. C. & C. R. R. v. Harper

9 S.E. 664, 30 S.C. 586, 1889 S.C. LEXIS 135
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided April 16, 1889·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The application for mandamus in this case was heard upon facts substantially the same as those in the recent case of State of South Carolina ex relatione The Charleston, Cincinnati & Chicago R. R. Co., et al., v. Robert Whitesides, chairman, et al.; and the questions of law involved are the same. Upon the authority of that case, therefore, the petition herein is dismissed, upon other grounds, however, than the alleged uneonstitutionality of the act of 1888, entitled -‘An act to provide for the. payment of township bonds issued in aid of railroads in this State,” which we hold constitutional. See State ex rel. C. C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Whitesides, ante, 579, and State ex rel. Dickinson v. Neely, next case post.

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

State ex rel. C. C. & C. R. R. v. Harper, 9 S.E. 664, 30 S.C. 586, 1889 S.C. LEXIS 135 (S.C. 1889).

9 S.E. 664 (State ex rel. C. C. & C. R. R. v. Harper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Folsom v. Ninety-Six TP.
131 F. 496 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1904)