Zeigler v. Thompson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Zeigler v. Thompson

111 S.E. 880, 119 S.C. 101, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 51

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 18, 1922

Docket10875

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 880 (Zeigler v. Thompson) 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

Zeigler v. Thompson, 111 S.E. 880, 119 S.C. 101, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 51 (S.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

*102 ■ The issue is clearly stated in' the circuit decree. The main question is whether or not the General. Assembly has the power to authorize the issue of bonds by a school district for school purposes.

It is held in the case of Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421, that the power of the General Assembly to authorize the issue of bonds by a territorial subdivision is limited only by the Constitution and the governmental character of the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued; that the Constitution requires a submission of the question to the qualified voters only in the case of bonds proposed to be issued by the State or by a city or town. Changing the declaration of the Court in the case of Carrison v. Kershaw County, 83 S. C. 88, 64 S. E. 1018, so as to make it appropriate to the case at bar, we may say:

“While Article 10, §11, of the Constitution forbids an increase of the public debt of the State without submitting the question to the qualified electors, and while Article 8, § 7, forbids any city or town creating a bonded debt without submitting the question to the qualified electors of the city or town, we find no such restriction on the power of the Eegislature with respect to the issuance of bonds by a county. In the absence of such restriction the power of the Legislature in the matter is plenary.”

The judgment o'f this Court is that the decree appealed from be affirmed.

M.r. Justice Watts did not participate on account of sickness.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

*102 ■ The issue is clearly stated in' the circuit decree. The main question is whether or not the General. Assembly has the power to authorize the issue of bonds by a school district for school purposes.

It is held in the case of Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421, that the power of the General Assembly to authorize the issue of bonds by a territorial subdivision is limited only by the Constitution and the governmental character of the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued; that the Constitution requires a submission of the question to the qualified voters only in the case of bonds proposed to be issued by the State or by a city or town. Changing the declaration of the Court in the case of Carrison v. Kershaw County, 83 S. C. 88, 64 S. E. 1018, so as to make it appropriate to the case at bar, we may say:

“While Article 10, §11, of the Constitution forbids an increase of the public debt of the State without submitting the question to the qualified electors, and while Article 8, § 7, forbids any city or town creating a bonded debt without submitting the question to the qualified electors of the city or town, we find no such restriction on the power of the Eegislature with respect to the issuance of bonds by a county. In the absence of such restriction the power of the Legislature in the matter is plenary.”

The judgment o'f this Court is that the decree appealed from be affirmed.

M.r. Justice Watts did not participate on account of sickness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 880, 119 S.C. 101, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigler-v-thompson-sc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack