Court Opinion

ID: 9417127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:03:52.794654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:36.311268
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Miller,
with whom concurred
Mr. Justice Hunt, dissenting.
I am of opinion that the power of taxation found in the charter of the city of Charleston, long before the contract was made which is here .sued on, entered, like all other laws, into the contract, and became a part of it. In other words, the contract was made subject to this power of taxation by the city of Charleston, as found in her charter from 1781 ’to'the present time.
The imposition and collection of this tax cannot, therefore, impair the obligation of a contract which was made subject to her right to exercise that power. I therefore dissent.
Note. — In Jenkins v. Charleston, error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina, which was argued by Mr. A. G. Magrath and Mr. Janies Lowndes for the plaintiff in error, and by the same counsel for the defendant in error as was the preceding- case, Me. Justice Strong, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked: This case is like Murray v. Charleston, and is governed by the decision there made.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State will be reversed, and the record remitted with instructions- to proceed in accordance with this opinion; and it is

So ordered.

Me. Justice Miller and Me. Justice Hunt dissented.