Court Opinion

ID: 9826423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:55:35.003657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:03.367387
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Woods.
1 I concur in the view that plaintiffs had an adequate and exclusive remedy under section 2012 of the Civil Code, and in affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court on that as a sufficient ground. I am unable, however, to assent to the view indicated by the Chief Justice, that, but for that statute, these actions could be maintained as actions for damages for tort against the city of Aiken. That a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for damages in such an action, has been often decided in this State. White v. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Hill, 571; Coleman v. Chester, 14 S. C., 286; Black v. City of Columbia, 19 S. C., 412; Young v. The City Council of Charleston, 20 S. C., 116; Chick v. Newberry County, 27 S. C., 419; Hill v. Laurens County, 34 S. C., 141; Parks v. Greenville, 44 S. C., 168; Bramlett v. City of Laurens, 58 S. C., 60.
As the Chief Justice has shown, these decisions are not in accord with the weight of authority elsewhere, and they could hardly be sustained on principle. For these reasons, I agree that the doctrine they maintain should not be extended. They .do not go to the extent of holding that a *184municipal corporation may not be restrained from committing a nuisance, or wrongfully taking or damaging private property, or that property may not be recovered back when unlawfully taken by such corporation. Hence it seems to me that the opinion of the Circuit Judge is correct, that but for the exclusive remedy provided by section 2012, under the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to an order of injunction, but not h> a verdict for damages.
Mr. Justice Gary did not sit in this case. R.