Wesley M.E. Church v. City of Columbia

89 S.E. 641, 105 S.C. 303, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 206
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided August 10, 1916·No. 9491·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gage.

The appeal presents a single issue of law. It is not denied that if the pavement in issue had been put down before the lot of a citizen, that the citizen would be bound to pay for it. It is only denied that a like obligation rests on the plaintiff here, because the plaintiff is a church, and its property is by the fundamental law exempt from “taxation.”

The charge in the instant case was not a tax within the meaning of the Constitution of 1895. That issue is thoroughly discussed, and decided adverse to the appellant, in Railroad v. Decatur, 147 U. S. 190, 13 Sup. Ct. 293, 37 D. Ed. 132.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Wesley M.E. Church v. City of Columbia, 89 S.E. 641, 105 S.C. 303, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 206 (S.C. 1916).

89 S.E. 641 (Wesley M.E. Church v. City of Columbia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

German Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Charleston
576 S.E.2d 150 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2003)
United States v. 9.94 A. OF LAND, IN CITY OF CHARLESTON
51 F. Supp. 478 (E.D. South Carolina, 1943)
Sutton v. Town of Fort Mill
172 S.E. 119 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
City of Greenville v. Query
164 S.E. 844 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
Kansas City v. Fairfax Drainage Dist.
34 F.2d 357 (Tenth Circuit, 1929)