TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lancaster School District v. Robinson-Humphrey Co.

Lancaster School District v. the Robinson-Humphrey Co.

Lancaster Sch. Dist. v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 42 S.E. 998 (S.C. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 25, 1902
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
42 S.E. 99864 S.C. 5451902 S.C. LEXIS 167
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Municipal Bonds — Constitution—State Debt. — In estimating the fifteen per cent, limitation prescribed by the Constitution of 189s beyond which the indebtedness of a municipality or political division may not be incurred, the State debt is not to be included.
Summary
Before Aldrich, J., Lancaster, October, 1902. Controversy without action in Lancaster School District against The Robinson-Humphrey Company. From Circuit decree, defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Plr Curiam.

The sole question made in this case is whether or not, in estimating the aggregate debt mentioned in the last clause of sec. 5, of art. X., of the Constitution othis State, the State debt is to be apportioned in order to determine whether the proposed issue of bonds to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars by the Lancaster School District will exceed the “fifteen per cent, limitation” contained in said section. Upon a careful consideration of the terms of the section of the Constitution above mentioned, this Court is of opinion that, in the clause of the Constitution here in question, reference was intended only to the debts of “the several political divisions or municipal corporations” of this State “covering or extending over the same territory or parts thereof,” as the debts to be taken into consideration in determining whether a proposed issue of bonds would exceed the “fifteen per cent, limitation” prescribed in said section, and that the State debt is not to be apportioned to any such political division or municipal corporation as a part of the debt to be estimated in ascertaining whether or not such limitation has been reached. Although it is not in express terms so decided in the case of Todd v. Laurens, 48 S. C., 404, 26 S. E. R., 682, yet the question here made is in effect decided as above concluded by necessary implication from the language used by this Court in that case.

It is, therefore, adjudged, that the decree of the Circuit Court herein be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11947: 11959: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Berry v. Milliken109 S.E.2d 354 (S.C. 1959)
  2. Ashmore v. Greater Greenville Sewer Dist.44 S.E.2d 88 (S.C. 1947)
  3. Nettles v. Cantwell99 S.E. 765 (S.C. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Berry v. Milliken109 S.E.2d 354 (S.C. 1959)
  2. Ashmore v. Greater Greenville Sewer Dist.44 S.E.2d 88 (S.C. 1947)
  3. Nettles v. Cantwell99 S.E. 765 (S.C. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list