Little v. Willimon

County' Bonds. Constitutional Law. Officers. Departments of Government. 1. County Bonds — Validity.—Acts of March 6, 1915, 29 Stats. 491; of February 26, 1915, 29 Stats. 553, creating a highway commission and providing for the issue of county bonds, held, constitutional and valid under principles announced in Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421. 2. Constitutional Law — Officers.—A statute requiring the appointment and removal of officers by the Governor, upon the recommendation of members of the General Assembly, does not violate the constitutional provision that the three departments of government shall be separate and distinct. 3. Constitutional Law- — Distribution of Powers. — The supervision of public work is not an inherent function of the executive department, and the legislature may have such work done by or through such agencies as it sees fit.

Before Hon. M. F. AnsEE, special Judge, Greenville, June, 1915. Action for injunction in which plaintiff seeks to have defendants enjoined from issuing certain bonds, and from selling and disposing of the same, or from performing duties incident to the issue of said bonds, and specified in two acts of the General Assembly passed at the session of 1915; one being entitled “An act to establish a highway commission for Greenville county and define its duties;” the other being entitled “An act to authorize and empower the supervisor of Greenville county to issue coupon bonds of said county in the sum of $950,000 for the purpose of permanent road improvements in said county and .to provide for automobile licenses and a property tax to pay the same.” The suit was instituted by service of summons and complaint on defendants on June 21, 1915. At the time of institution of suit defendants were served with an order issued by his Honor, Judge M. F. Ansel, special Judge, presiding in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville county, to show cause before him why a temporary injunction should not be granted, pending hearing of the cause. In response to this order the defendants made their return on June 25, 1915, ac'companied by certain statements hereinafter referred to, and the application for an injunction was heard then on the complaint and return.with accompanying exhibits. After argument by counsel for both sides, his Honor, Judge Ansel, passed an order refusing to grant the temporary injunction and holding the acts under which defendants were seeking to act valid and constitutional. From this order the plaintiff appeals. submit: Bonded indebtedness against county, except by a vote of the electors: 1 Dillon Munc. Corp., p. 162; Const., art. I, secs. 1 and 5; 42 S. C. 304; 2 Speer 644; 53 S. C. 28; 30 S. C. 604. Rights of individuals protected: Const., art. XVII, sec. 11, par. 3; 7 How. Pr. 124; 111 S. W. 908; 83 S. C. 88, questioned. Has the legislature the right to dictate to county officers their action in the matter of local affairs, such as the maintenance of roads, and can the legislature divest county authorities of the right to determine without its direction the character of improvements to• be made in the roads and the expenditure therefor? 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., p. 162; 21 N. E. 278; Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.) 208; Const., art. I, sec. 29; art. X, sec. 6; Black Interpretation of Laws, p. 541; 50 S. E. 295; 5Í N. Y. 401; 4 Wall. 446. A county is a body politic and corporate: Const., art. VII, sec. 9; Civil Code, secs. 587, 937; 6 S. C. 42; 30 S. C. 20; 61 S. C. 213; 24 Mich. 44; 9 Am. Rep. 103; 22 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1063; 51 111. 17. Has the legislature assumed executive and administrative powers or conferred the same upon the legislative delegation from Greenville county? If so, are such actions of a character to render the statutes in question unconstitutional? 21 N. E. 252, 267 and 275; 15 Md. 455; 53 Conn. 76; 3 J. J. Marsh 401; 20 Ct. Cl. Rep. 438; 116 U. S. 483; 68 N. C. 429. What is included in bonded indebtedness? 1 A. & L. Diet. 141; Harper’s L. 434; 4 A. & E. Enc. of L. 620; 2 N. & McC. 126; 60 S. C. 555; 14 S. E. 279; 92 S. C. 94. Construction of amendment to Constitution with reference to limit of bonded indebtedness: I Cooley Const. Lim. 217; Endlich Inter. Stats., sec. 223; 36 Cyc. 1088; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., sec. 235; 8 S. C. 207; 68 S. C. 415. Not retroactive: 34 S. C. 468; 22 S. C. 504; II S. C. 328; 13 Rich. 280; 9 S. C. 293; 55 S. C. 302. submit: Temporary notes not part of bonded indebtedness: 73 S. C. 94; 5 S. C. 156; 63 S. C. 438; Civil Code, secs. 1001; 127 S. W. 1072; 34 Atl. 916; 68 s’ E. 118; 197 Pa. 41; 46 Atl. 1035; 80 Am. St. Rep. 812. Only the amount in excess of the limitation invalid: 50 N. E. 81; 32 So. 42; 47 Mich. 226; 10 N. W. 349; 127 111. 30; 18 N. E. 781; 43 Iowa 48; 22 Am. Rep. 115; 20 A. & E Enc. L. (2d ed.) 1173; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 110; 117 U. S. 657; 21 A. & E. Enc. of L. (2d ed:) 82; 114 Eed. 162; 52 C. C. A. 118; 78 Tex. 450; 14 S. W. 1003; 54 Fed. 487; 4 C. C. A. 460; 164 U. S. 599; 97 N. W. 1049, 1052; 150 U. S. 182, distinguished; 117 U. S.' 635; 164 U. S. 599; 198 Fed. 557; 212 Fed. 4. Amendment of Constitution-excludes the bonds. mentioned from limitation: 62 S. C. 57; 72 S. C. 532; 91 S. C. 413. As to whether the acts authorising the highway bonds and creating the highway commission are violative of the letter of the spirit of the Constitution (a) in that they create a commission with supervisory control over the county authorities interfering with local self-government; (b) in that they authorise the issue of bonds without submitting the question to a vote of the electors, and (c) whether the case of Carrison v. Kershaw, 83 S: C. 88, should be overruled: 13 S. C. 300; 62 S. C..29; 21 S. C. 414; 48 R. R. A. 465; 170 U. S. 310, 370; 169 U. S. 557; 13 Mich. 481; 92 U. S. 312; 91 U. S. 540; 132 Am. St. Rep, 196; 59 Am. Dec. 759; Cooley Const. Rim. (7th ed.) 239, 240.