Case Name: WOOD v. ROSS
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-03-18
Citations: 85 S.C. 309
Docket Number: 7510
Parties: WOOD v. ROSS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 309–319

Head Matter:
7510
WOOD v. ROSS.
1. Cities axb Towns — Waterworks—Board of Public Works. — The provisions of the act of 1908, 35 Stat., 563, empowering the board of public works of the town of Gaffney to borrow money for maintaining a waterworks system is in aid of the amendment to the Constitution extending the bond debt limit.
2. Ibid. — Ibid.—The amended constitutional provision relating to establishing, maintaining, etc., waterworks systems does not express such different purposes as to require the questions of erecting waterworks and maintaining them to be submitted to the electors as different propositions.
3. Municipal bonds may be made payable in gold.
Mr. Justice Gary thinks the act of 1908, 25 -8tat., 568, and the act of 1907 amended thereby, have both been held unconstitutional by the circuit decrees.
Before DeVorE, J., Cherokee, December, 1909.
Affirmed.
Action by A. N. Wood against W. H. Ross as Mayor et al. The important part of the decree of Judge Sease is set out in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Gary. The decree of Judge DeVore is:
“The above entitled cause is an action brought by the plaintiff to enjoin elections by the Town Council of Gaffney, in which elections it is sought to issue $75,000.00 of bonds for water works and $50,000.00 of bonds for a sewerage system; the grounds upon which the injunction is sought are stated fully in the petition or complaint of the plaintiff. Upon the complaint and the answer of the town council of Gaffney and the board of public works, and also record of the various proceedings taken for the purpose of holding said elections and issuing bonds thereunder, a motion was made for a temporary injunction before his Honor, Judge T. S. Sease, Judge of the seventh circuit. On the 20th day of August, 1909, Judge Sease filed an order refusing the injunction. In this order he reviews fully all the questions presented in so satisfactory a manner, that his views are adopted in this decree as settling all issues passed on by him, and said order is made a part of this decree and judgment..
“Thereafter, the Security Trust Company of Spartan-burg, S. C., obtained leave from the Court to file an answer setting up such additional matters affecting the validity of said bond issue, as in the judgment of its attorneys should be passed upon. This company is interested in the final determination of all matters affecting said bonds, as it has purchased said bond issue subject to their validity.
“This cause was marked ‘heard’ by me at the November term of the Court of Common Pleas sitting in Cherokee county, and the argument and the record was submitted to me by consent at Spartanburg on December 3, 1909, all attorneys of record consenting.
“As the issues raised by the complaint and answer of the plaintiff and the town council of Gaffney, S. C., and the board of public works of Gaffney, S. C., have already been determined, it remains to pass on the separate issues raised by the answer of the Security Trust Company, the purchaser of said bonds.
“Since the order of Judge Sease was made, the elections have been held in the town of Gaffney, and both the bonds for waterworks and for sewerage have been voted by an overwhelming majority, thereby giving evidence of the most positive character of the will of the voters.
“The trust company alleges that the bonds for water works are invalid inasmuch as the question submitted to the voters was for ‘building, erecting, establishing and maintenance’ of a waterworks plant for Gaffney, and that this is in conflict with an act of the General Assembly approved February lé, 1908, being No. 563 of XXV Sts., S. C., wherein provision is made for the board of public works to borrow not exceeding $15,000.00 each year for operating, repairing and maintaining the waterworks plant. The contention is, that provision having already been made by statute for maintaining the waterworks plant, that bonds should not have been voted under the constitutional amendment of 1909 for the maintenance of the waterworks plant, but that said bonds should have been confined to building, and erecting such waterworks plant. It is conceded that, but for the amendment to the Constitution, the town of Gaffney would not have had the power to issue the amount of bonds voted, and that the issue depends upon that amendment for its validity. That amendment declares in its own terms that the bonds voted shall be used ‘solely and exclusively for the purpose of building, erecting, establishing and maintenance of waterworks, electric light plants or sewerage systems.’ In construing the Act of 1908 with the subsequent amendment to the Constitution, it is by no means necessary to hold that one is in conflict with the other, indeed they can be, and should be made to harmonize. The constitutional provision relates to the voting of bonds for such purposes by the electors of the corporation, while the act in question confers upon a different entity the power to borrow money to maintain the waterworks and sewerage plants, so that the one provision is in aid of, and not in conflict with, the other; so that, if the bond issue is not sufficient for the maintenance of, as well as for the building, erecting and establishing such waterworks and sewerage plants, then the board of public works may have recourse to their statutory power, and borrow money for operating, repairing and maintaining said plants.
“Besides this, if there were any inconsistency, the latter provision of the Constitution would control, but there is no such inconsistency.
“The words of the constitutional amendment, building, erecting, establishing and maintenance, being joined together by the word ‘and’ should be construed as denoting such singleness of the objects expressed as to dispense with the necessity of stating separately the amount for maintenance, and the amount for building, erecting and establishing, so that the contention made in the 4th paragraph of the answer must be overruled.
“As to the fifth paragraph of the answer, what has been said in connection with the first issue raised disposes of this issue also, as the stated purpose for which it was proposed to issue bonds for sewerage is within the language of the constitutional amendment.
“The last question to be disposed of questions the power of the town council to make the bonds issued payable in gold coin, instead of leaving it optional to pay the same in any legal tender money of the United States. Such payment is authorized by section 2008 of the Code of Civil Taws, and accords with the opinion of Judge Gary in the case of Lipscomb v. Ross, 83 S. C., 136, and with the judgment of Judge Sease, and this question is overruled.
“It is the judgment of the Court that insofar as any questions herein involved are concerned, the issue of $75,000.00 waterworks bonds and $50,000.00' sewerage bonds for the town of Gaffney are valid; that the complaint of the plaintiff and the answer of the Security Trust Company are both dismissed.”
Rrom this decree the Security Trust Company appeals.
Messrs. Simpson & Bomar, for appellant.
Mr. J. C. Jeffries, contra.
March 18. 1910.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
Certain questions made in this cause as to the validity of bonds of the town of Gaffney were discussed and passed on by Judge Sease in an order refusing to enjoin the issue of the bonds. When the cause came on for trial, Judge DeVore adopted and made the judgment of the Court the conclusions of Judge Sease on the questions that were before him; and in addition, Judge DeVore discussed and held to be without foundation certain other specific objections to the bond issue made by the Security Trust Company which had agreed to purchase the bonds.
The objections made by the Security Trust Company are thus set out in the exceptions:
1st. "Because the presiding Judge erred in not sustaining the contention of the defendant, Security Trust Company, that the bonds about to be issued, as referred to in this proceeding, are, and will be, utterly null and void because not issued in accordance with the act of the legislature of the State of South Carolina, of date Februaiy 14, 1908, 25 Statutes, 563, in that the said act provides that the waterworks to be established by the proceeds of the sale of waterworks bonds in question should be maintained by money borrowed annually by the board of public works, not exceeding $15,000 borrowed at one time; whereas, the bonds about to be issued were voted and are to be used for the maintenance of the waterworks plant, as well as for the building, erecting and establishing it.
2d. "Because the Circuit Court erred in not holding that the waterworks bonds in question are, and will be, void for the reason that the election which authorized the issuance of said bonds was held for a double purpose, to wit, for the purpose of building, erecting and establishing a waterworks plant, and also for the purpose of maintaining the same, when the two propositions should have been separately submitted to the voters of the town of Gaffney to be voted on.
3d. "Because the Circuit Judge erred in not holding that all of the bonds in question are, and will be, illegal and invalid for that they are to be made payable in gold coin, when there is no statute or other authority of law requiring or allowing them to be made so payable."
These objections are without foundation and are fully disposed of by the. reasoning and judgment of Judge Devore. No objections to the legality of the proposed bond issue are before this Court except those specifically covered by the exceptions, and for that reason we express no opinion as to the other questions discussed in the decrees of Judge Sease and Judge DeVore.
The judgment of this Court is that the appeal be dismissed.