Before Shipp, J., Florence, May, 1920.

Action by R. M. Graham, a taxpayer, against A. L. Ervin, as County Supervisor, and the members of the Florence County Highway Commission, to test the validity of certain bonds. From decree for defendants, the plaintiff appeals The report of the master and the decree below were as follows:

“Master’s Report. This matter comes before me upon the complaint of the plaintiff and answer of the defendant under an order to me directed by his Honor, Circuit Judge S. W. G. Shipp. The issues of both fact and law, as made by the complaint and answer, are sharp and well defined. I have held a reference at which considerable testimony was adduced, and, after giving the same careful consideration, I beg leave to submit this, my report, thereon:

“(1) The plaintiff in his complaint alleges that he is a citizen and taxpayer of the county of Florence, and this the defendant admits. There can be no doubt about that and no question is made thereabout. The plaintiff, as such, has a status which entitles him to maintain this action for himself and any and all other taxpayers of the county of Florence who will come in and share with him the expenses of this litigation.

“(2) The plaintiff alleges that the defendants named are acting as the commission created by the act of the Assembly which is brought in question in this case, and that allegation is admitted by the defendants.

“(3) The plaintiff attaches to the complaint a copy of the act in question, and while the defendants admit that the copy attached to the complaint, so far as it goes, is correct, they tender and proffer to the Court as a part of their answer a certified copy of the act attested by the Secretary of State under the great seal thereof.

“(4) The plaintiff alleges that the act is violative of section 17, art. Ill, of the Constitution of South Carolina 1895, and cites the act in support thereof. The defendants deny this allegation, and thus a question of law is raised for determination. The constitutional provision in question is correctly set forth in the complaint as follows: ‘Evety act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.’

1 “After a careful study of the act in question under the rule that this provision of the Constitution should have a liberal construction, I am of opinion that the act is not violative of this provision of the general subject as expressed in the title, and all of the details of legislation therein contained are intended to and do provide the means, methods, and instrumentalities which are intended to facilitate the accomplishment of the general purpose and are germane to it. State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 449, 54 S. E. 607; Aycock-Little Co. v. Railway, 76 S. C. 331, 57 S. E. 27; Johnson v. Commissioners, 97 S. C. 205, 81 S. E. 502; Dillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421-.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress