Sullivan v. City Council of Charleston

130 S.E. 872, 133 S.C. 156, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 64
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided November 24, 1925·No. 11867·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Gary.

This is an application to the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction for an injunction. The petition is as follows: ■

“The petition of Eucy C. Sullivan respectfully shows:
“First. That, at the times hereinafter mentioned, the respondent, the City Council of Charleston, was and is now a municipal body corporate.
“Second. That the petitioner, Eucy C. Sullivan, is a resident freeholder and taxpayer in the City of Charleston, Charleston County, S. C.
“Third. That by an Act of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina approved the 14th day of March, A. D. 1925, entitled ‘An Act .to authorize the City Council of Charleston to fund certain of its outstanding indebtedness existing at this time by the issuance of not exceeding Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($360,000.00) Dollars of coupon notes of the City Council of Charleston, and to *158 provide a penalty for the diversion of the proceeds of said notes from the purposes for which issued,” the City Council of Charleston was authorized and empowered to issue its coupon notes not exceeding Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($360,000.00) Dollars, the proceeds thereof to be deposited with the City Treasurer as a replacement of funds heretofore taken from the City Treasurer by City Council and used for purposes other than those for which the taxes represented thereby were levied and collected. A copy of said Act is hereto attached and made part and parcel hereof, marked Exhibit A.
“Fourth. That under the authority of said Act, by ordinance ratified the 9th day of June, 1925, the City Council of Charleston directed the issuance of notes of the City Council of Charleston in the sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand ($330,000.00) Dollars, bearing date the 10th day of June, 1925, in denominations of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars and Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, each, bearing interest at the rate of 4% per cent, per annum, payable semiannually, and maturing in annual series or installments of Sixteen Thousand, Five Hundred ($16,-500.00) Dollars a year, the first installment of which shall be due and payable one year from their date and the last installment twenty years after the date thereof; and in and by said ordinance it was provided that there should be levied and collected on all taxable property within the City of. Charleston, a sum sufficient to pay the interest and principal of said notes as they respectively mature; and in and by said ordinance it was provided that the proceeds of said notes when sold shall be deposited with City Treasurer as the replacement of funds heretofore taken from City Treasurer by City Council and used for purposes other than those for which the taxes represented thereby were levied and collected, which said funds are hereby declared to be as follows:
*159 Commissioners of Public Schools, Charleston, S. C, Fund ........................$180,852,55
Sewerage Bond Fund ...................: 86,115.87
New Bridge Fund ....................... 65,765.31
$332,733.73
“Fifth. That, in pursuance of said ordinance, the City Council of Charleston is about to issue, and will issue, unless restrained by this Honorable Court, the said notes directed to be issued under said ordinance, and as a taxpayer in the City of Charleston and owner of propertjr therein this plaintiff will be charged with the payment of the annual tax provided to be levied for the payment of the principal and interest of said notes, and will have no remedy at law.
“Sixth. That the issuance of said notes will be unconstitutional and illegal in that:
“(1) The said notes, although termed such, will in reality create a bonded indebtedness of the City Council of Charleston, and are about to be issued without a petition from a majority of the freeholders asking for an election on the question of the issuance of the same and without such election being held in violation of the provisions of Article 2, § 13, and Article 8, § 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895.
. “(2) The present existing bonded indebtedness of the City Council of Charleston now exceeds 8 per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property therein, and the issuance of said notes will further increase said indebtedness in violation of the provisions of Article 8, § 7, of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895.
“(3) The issuance of said notes will be for no corporate purpose of said municipality, being issued for the replacement in the Treasury of City Council of funds collected for special purposes by taxation in previous years and used for purposes other than those for which levied and will be in violation of the provisions of Article 10, § 5, of the *160 Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, which authorizes cities to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes only.
“(4) The said Act is in violation of the provisions of Article 3, § 34, Subdivision 2, in that it enacts a local law extending the charter of the City Council of Charleston; the said corporation under its charter having no powers to contract indebtedness for the purposes set forth in said Act.
“(5) The said Act of the General Assembly, authorizing the issuance of said notes, is in violation of the provisions of Article 3, § 34, Subdivision 9, of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, in that it enacts a special law where a general law could have been enacted applicable to the subject of the Act.
“Wherefore, plaintiff prays that an injunction be issued restraining the said respondent from issuing and selling the notes hereinabove referred to, and for such other and further relief as.may be just in the premises.”

The petition was verified.

On hearing the petition, this Court issued a rule requiring the respondent to show cause why the injunction should not be granted.

The following is a copy of the Act (34 Statutes at Large, page 659) in question:

“An Act to authorize the City Council of Charleston to-fund certain of its outstanding indebtedness existing-at this time by the issuance of not exceeding Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($360,000.00) Dollars, of coupon notes of the City Council of Charleston, and to .provide a penalty for the diversion of the proceeds of said notes from the purposes for which issued.
“Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of' die State of South Carolina: That the City Council of Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina, is hereby *161

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

Sullivan v. City Council of Charleston, 130 S.E. 872, 133 S.C. 156, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 64 (S.C. 1925).

130 S.E. 872 (Sullivan v. City Council of Charleston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mills Mill v. Hawkins
103 S.E.2d 14 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1957)
City of Spartanburg v. BLALOCK
75 S.E.2d 360 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1953)
City of Georgetown v. Elliott
95 F.2d 774 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Crawford v. Stevens
175 S.E. 213 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1934)
Roach v. City of Columbia
174 S.E. 461 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1934)