Case Name: ROBINSON v. CITY OF COLUMBIA
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-05-31
Citations: 116 S.C. 193
Docket Number: 10624
Parties: ROBINSON v. CITY OF COLUMBIA.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Justices Watts and Cothran concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 193–202

Head Matter:
10624
ROBINSON v. CITY OF COLUMBIA.
(107 S. E. 476)
1. Statutes — Amendatory Act Making Special Act Generad Unconstitutional for Failure of Title to Conform to Body of Act..— Act March 13, 1919, (31 St. at Large, p. 273), described in title as an act to amend Civ. Code 1912, § 2937, as amended, a special act relating to tax levy applicable only to the cities of Anderson and Spartanburg, and purporting in its body to remove all limitations upon the authority of cities of more than a specified population to impose annual taxes for municipal purposes, held violative of Const, art. 3, § 17, in that the title does not conform to the body of the act.
2. Statutes — Omitted Words Cannot be Supplied to Make Title Conform to Body of Act. — Words omitted from title by clerical error cannot be supplied to make the title conform to the body of the act, as required by Const, art. 3, § 17.
3. Statutes — Title Should Not Include all Provisions, But Must Indicate Subject of Proposed Legislation. — The title should not contain all the provisions of the act, but under Const, art. 3, § 17, requiring title to conform to body of act, must indicate the subject of the proposed legislation.
4. Appeal and Error — Objection to Constitutionality of Act Not Relied on not Considered on Appeal.- — Action to recover excess taxes levied under alleged unconstitutional act, objection to constitutionality, alleged but not relied upon by plaintiff, will not be considered on appeal.
Before Whaley, J., County Court, Richland, August, 1920.
Reversed.
Action by D. W. Robinson against the City of Columbia. From judgment for defendant the plaintiff appeals.
Mr. D. W. Robinson, for -appellant,
cites: Act in question: 31 Stats. 273. Purpose was as a substitute for Sec. 2937, 1 Civ. Code 1912. Act shall relate to one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title: Const. 1895, Art. Ill, Sec. 17; 16 S. C. 56; 80 S. C. 130; 51 S. C. 249; 68 S. C. 149. This provision entitled to a liberal construction: 59 S. C. 409; 106 S. C. 161; 111 S. C. 209. Act as enrolled is conclusive evidence of its terms: 104 S. C. 345; 39 S. C. 307. Sec. 2937, 1 Civ. Code 1912 is a nullity: Art. Ill, Sec. 34, Const. 1895; Art. VIII, Subsec. 1; 109 S. C. 6; 114 S. C. 120; 105 S. C. 185. Court should grant all relief to which a-party is entitled even if it be not all that he ask for: 113 S. C. 477; 39 S. C. 13. Not the right to tax, but the■ extent, is at issue: 13 S. C. 55.
Mr. C. S. Monteith, for respondent,
cites: Similar provision to Sec. 17, Art. Ill, Const. 1895 was Sec. 20, Art. II, Const. 1868, construed by the Court in: 14 S. C. 449; 16 S. C. 56; 76 S. C. 332; 4 S. C. 430 ; 4 S. C. 530; 12 S. C. 203; 16 S. C. 47; 79 S. C. 114; 23' S. C. 427; 25 S. C. 53; 30 S. C. 1; 31 S. C. 282; 34 S. C. 357; 51 S. C. 247; 58 S. C. 415 ; 59 S. C. 52; 68 S. C. 149; 72 S. C. 513;’ 75 S. C. 427; 77 S. C. 260; 76 S. C. 331; 79 S. C. 96; 80 ' S. C. 127; 97 S. C. 212; 103 S. C. 10. Sec. 2937, 1 Civ. Code 1912, was pássed:-25 Stat. 1053. First amendment: 29 Stat. 71. Second amendment: 29 Stat. 736. Third amendment: 30 Stat. 273. Taxing power of municipalities limited-. 12 S. C. 76; 73 S. C. 89; Art. VIII, Sec. 3, 6, Const. 1895. Restriction is as to the object of taxation, not the amount: 39 S. O. 5.
May 31, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This is an action under th'e statute, to recover $33.54, alleged to be excess taxes paid by the plaintiff on his property located in the City of Columbia. The complaint alleges that the excess tax was levied under the act of 1919 (31 St. at Large, p. 273). It is alleged that this act violates section 17 of article 3, and section 3 of article 8, in 'that, first, the title does not conform to the body of the act, and, second, that there is no limitation on the power of cities to levy taxes.
I. Does the title conform to the body of the act? It does not. It would serve no good purpose to cite authorities for this holding. This unconstitutionality is too clear. A simple statement of case is sufficient. Section 2937, Code of Laws of South Carolina, Vol. 1, is a special act and applies only to the City of Anderson. That section was amended to- include the City of Greenville; again amended to exclude the City of Greenville; then amended to include the City of Spartanburg. The act in question in 1919 amended the Spartanburg act so as to make it general. The act reads as follows:
"An act to amend section 2937, volume 1, Code of Laws of South Carolina, as amended by an act entitled 'An act to amend section 2937, volume 1, Code of Laws as amended by an act entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to amend section 2937 of volume 1, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1912, relating to the right of municipalities to impose a tax for municipal purposes,' so as to include the City of Greenville," approved the 11th day of February, 1915, so as to exclude the City of Greenville' from the op eration of said act.' Approved February 11, 1916, with reference to municipal tax levy of the City of Spartanburg.
"Section 2937. All municipal corporations containing more than five thousand inhabitants shall have power to impose by ordinance an annual tax sufficient to méet all expenses of the municipality, including current expenses, any school tax provided by law, fixed charges in the way of interest and sinking fund on bond, and any other matter for which such municipality may be now or hereafter liable: Provided, that-ten days' public notice thereof shall be given, setting forth the amount levied for the several purposes for which levy may be made: Provided, the levy in the City of Spartanburg shall not exceed fifteen (IS) mills, and out of the taxes so levied the City Council of Spartan-burg is authorized to appropriate such amount as may be necessary to pay the rents due by the said city under its contracts for rental of certain lands used by United States Government for camp purposes."
The title to the act and the title on the cover to the act are not the same, and the respondent seeks to sustain the act by showing that certain words, to wit: "by striking out certain provisions therein contained," had, by a clerical error, been omitted from: the title. That does not cure the defect. There were three statutes amending Section 2937; all of them were special statutes, and even if omitted words could be supplied (it is elemental that they cannot), they gave no notice that the object of the act was to change a special law into a general law. It is true that the title to an act should contain all of the provisions of the act, but it must indicate the subject of the proposed legislation. The act to amend an act relating only to Anderson and Spartanburg by striking out certain provisions therein contained gives notice of a change that affects only Anderson and Spartanburg, and this act affected neither, but made a general law out of a special law.
II. The decree from which this appeal is taken says: "The last ground, however, was not relied upon by plaintiff." There is nothing in the case to show that this statement is erroneous. The second ground cannot be considered. It is now academic any way.
•The judgment'is reversed.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Justices Watts and Cothran concur.