Court Opinion

ID: 9583554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:39:46.011126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:04.321787
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice
(dissenting) :
The authorities cited in the order of the lower court and in the briefs of counsel clearly and fully support the judgment below, which should be affirmed. None of these pertinent authorities is discussed or attempted to be distinguished in the majority opinion.
For at least a half a century the terms “bonded debt” and “bonded indebtedness”, contained in Article VIII, Sec. 7, and Article X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution have been consistently defined in numerous decisions by this Court. These terms signify a primary obligation of the particular political subdivision involved, secured primarily by an ad valorem tax levied upon all of the taxable property therein. Among other cases see: Jackson v. Breeland, 103 S. C. 184, 88 S. E. 128, 130; Bolton v. Wharton, 163 S. C. 242, 161 S. E. 454; Thomson v. Christopher, 141 S. C. 92, 139 S. E. 178; Barnwell v. Matthews, 132 S. C. 314, 128 S. E. 712; Briggs v. Greenville County, 137 S. C. 288, 135 S. E. 153.
The bonds in the instant case are secured primarily by revenues from the parking facilities; secondarily by a portion of the business license fees, and not at all by an ad valorem tax levied upon any taxable property. It clearly follows that these obligations do not constitute a “bonded debt” *420within the purview of the Constitution, as such term has been consistently defined by this Court. Our prior definition is too firmly and well established to be currently discarded without even discussion.
Appellant argues that the diversion of a portion of the business license fees to help defray the cost of the bonds converts such into a “bonded debt” because of the possible contingency of an increase in ad valorem taxes resulting from such diversion. This contention is, I think, fully met and disposed of by the rationale of the opinion in the Briggs case and the various other cases therein cited and analyzed. The Colorado case of City of Trinidad v. Haxby, 136 Colo. 168, 315 P. (2d) 204, cited in the majority opinion, is not at all persuasive. Historically, there appear to be quite fundamental differences between the pertinent laws of that state and those of this state. But, even if such case be regarded as persuasive, it should not be followed without regard to, or discussion of, our own decisions.
Brailsford, J., concurs.