Case ID: scl_35/html/0217-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia, per Frost, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. William H. Barnwell, v. The City Council of Charleston.
    
    A bond held by one living within the corporate limits of Charleston is subject to taxation by the City Council, though the obligor resides out of the city; and it is not objectionable that the tax should be imposed in cases where the obligor is solvent, and that this question should be left to be determined by the holder of the bond.
    
      Before Frost, J. at Chambers, Charleston, January 26th, 1850.
    Motion for a rule, against the City Council of Charleston, to show cause why a writ of piohibition should not issue, to restrain the enforcement of an execution, issued by the authority of the respondents, for the collection of the Sum of sixty-eight dollars, beiug the assessed amount of a tax, imposed by an ordinance, at the rate of forty-eight cents per hundred dollars, op fourteen thousand dollars, invested in bonds, held by the relator, who is a resident of the city, and due by certain debtors residing in Colleton district.
    The motion having been submitted for decision, only that the case might be carried to the Court of Appeals, his Honor did not present the arguments and views by which he was directed in forming his opinion.
    He refused to grant the motion.
    The relator appealed,on the grounds following:
    1. Because the amount required to be paid is so laige, that it never could have been the intenlion of the Legislature to grant to the City Council the power to exact it from citizens.
    2. Because by the terms of the ordinance, the tax is imposed in cases where debtors are solvent: thereby raising a question which the Council will not undertake to decide, and the tax-payer is often unwilling and unable to determine.
    3. Because the restriction complained if, is a penalty, and not a tax.
    
    4. Because such an ordinance necessarily is, and ought to be, prospective in its operation: whereas in its operation upon the relator it would be in the nature of a post facto law.
    
    
      5. Because the debtor of the relator resides in Colleton district, and the sum due to the relator is not, in any aspect, liable to taxation as city property, or property the subject of municipal regulation by the authorities of this city.
    
      W. E. Martin, for the motion.
    
      Porter, City attorney, contra.
   Curia, per Frost, J.

In the case of the State v. The City Council of Charleston, it was decided, that bonds, owned by a resident of the city, are taxable property, which the City Council has authority under the charter to tax. And in Hayne v. Deliesseline, City sheriff, it was decided that bonds, owned by an inhabitant of the city, were subject to taxation by the Council, though the obligor resided out of the limits of the City. These cases are conclusive authority on the question of the power of the City Council to impose the tax on the bonds owned by the relator in this casé; and it is needless to repeat or amplify the grounds on which those cases are rested.

The imposition of the tax on bonds in cases where the obli-gors are solvent, and leaving that question to be determined by the holder, are provisions in the ordinance altogether favorable to the holder. Yery few persons will experience any conscientious embarrassment in making a return of his bonds for taxation. Every holder of a bond must have a knowledge or belief whether the obligor is solvent, and he is required only to declare on oath his opinion that the obligor is solvent.

The motion is refused.

B,ichar,dson, O’Neall and Evans, JJ. concurred.

Motion refused.