§

Hodge v. School District

80 S.C. 518 (S.C. 1908)
Hodge v. School District

13 Citing cases

  1. A. C.A.L. Ry. Co. v. Easley

    117 S.C. 494 (S.C. 1921)   Cited 13 times
    In Atlanta Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co. v. City ofEasley, 117 S.C. 494, 109 S.E. 285, 291, the town of Easley, without legislative authority, levied an assessment for street improvements.

    In no case can the Legislature authorize the violation of the Constitution or validate an unconstitutional act. State v.Whitesides, 30 S.C. 579; 9 S.E., 661; 3 L.R.A. 777; Hode v. School District, 80 S.C. 518; 61 S.E., 1009. Curative acts can remedy irregularities in judicial proceedings, but cannot cure void proceedings. Black, Constitutional Prohibitions, 208, 209.

  2. Ashmore et al. v. Greater Gr'ville Sewer D. et al

    211 S.C. 77 (S.C. 1947)   Cited 95 times
    Holding the General Assembly’s plenary power is limited only by the United States and South Carolina Constitutions and legislation "not expressly or impliedly inhibited by one or the other of these documents may be validly enacted"

    Messrs. J. Wilbur Hicks, of Greenville, and Huger Sinkler, of Charleston, for Respondents, on re-hearing, cite: Asto the validity of curative Acts, even though necessarily retroactive: 80 S.C. 518, 61 S.E. 1009; 92 S.C. 313, 75 S.E. 303; 94 S.C. 444, 78 S.E. 516; 117 S.C. 494, 109 S.E. 285; 120 S.C. 88, 112 S.E. 746; 129 S.C. 188, 123 S.E. 822; 149 S.C. 234, 147 S.E. 346; 173 S.C. 149, 175 S.E. 213; 160 S.C. 150, 158 S.E. 233; 106 S.C. 102, 90 S.E. 402. As to the power of the General Assemblyto provide for the issuance of bonds without an election: 83 S.C. 88, 64 S.E. 1018; 103 S.C. 10, 87 S.E. 421; 119 S.C. 101, 111 S.E. 880; 132 S.C. 314, 128 S.E. 712; 114 S.C. 419, 103 S.E. 750; 136 S.C. 345, 134 S.E. 380; 138 S.C. 468, 138 S.E. 891; 152 S.C. 455, 150 S.E. 269; 181 S.C. 323, 187 S.E. 548; 101 S.C. 312, 85 S.E. 774.

  3. State ex Rel. Crawford v. Stevens

    173 S.C. 149 (S.C. 1934)   Cited 26 times

    Mr. D.W. Robinson Jr., for petitioner, cites: Constructionof statute: 169 S.C. 198; 168 S.E., 554; 112 S.C. 528; 100 S.E., 355; 166 S.C. 117; 164 S.E., 588; 286 U.S. 472; 76 L.Ed., 1232; 184 A.L.R., 831. Messrs. John M. Daniel, Attorney General, J. IveyHumphrey and J. Ingram Wilson, Assistant AttorneyGenerals, for respondents, cite: Authority to create indebtedness: 170 S.C. 362; 133 S.C. 189; 152 S.C. 455; 137 S.C. 288; 137 S.C. 496; 80 S.C. 518. June 22, 1934.

  4. Lucas v. Barringer, Mayor, et al

    120 S.C. 68 (S.C. 1922)   Cited 19 times

    An examination of the minutes of city council showed irregularities and violations of the provisions of the charter in the passage and adoption of the resolution or ordinances in the opening and closing of the books of registration and in the notices of the elections, but such irregularities cannot affect the validity of the bonds, as the validating Acts cured all statutory violations, under which head the irregularities complained of fall. Hodge v. Trustees ofSchool District, 80 S.C. 518, 61 S.E., 1009; Dovev. Kirkland, 92 S.C. 318, 75 S.E., 503.

  5. Brown v. Moseley

    222 S.C. 1 (S.C. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    In Brown v. Moseley, 222 S.C. 1, 71 S.E.2d 591, attack was made, under Article III, Section 34, Subdivision IX, upon an act passed in 1952 amending the general law relating to the time for holding elections for the office of sheriff, so as to provide that in Kershaw County such election should be held in 1954 and quadrennially thereafter.

    John K. deLoach and J. Claytor Arrants, of Camden, and Robinson, Robinson and Dreher, of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to power of legislature to enactan Act with retroactive effect: 173 S.C. 243, 175 S.E. 501; 203 S.C. 410, 27 S.E.2d 573. As to all curativeor validating statutes being, of necessity, retroactive: 158 S.C. 534, 155 S.E. 890; 149 S.C. 234, 147 S.E. 346; 80 S.C. 518, 61 S.E. 1009; 21 S.C. 414; 211 S.C. 77, 44 S.E.2d 88. As to except where the constitutionprohibits, the power of the legislature is plenary: 213 S.C. 1, 48 S.E.2d 601; 136 S.C. 439, 134 S.E. 387; 103 S.C. 87, 87 S.E. 436; 306 U.S. 535, 83 L.Ed. 968.

  6. Smith et al. v. Lexington School District

    219 S.C. 191 (S.C. 1951)   Cited 8 times

    Assuming that the validity of said election can be challenged in this proceeding, any irregularities connected therewith were cured by the validating act. Hodge v. Trustees of School District, 80 S.C. 518, 61 S.E. 1009; Dove v. Kirkland, 92 S.C. 313, 75 S.E. 503; Ashmore v. Greater Greenville Sewer District, 211 S.C. 77, 44 S.E.2d 88, 173 A.L.R. 397. It must be kept in mind that there is no constitutional requirement of a referendum upon legislation of this kind.

  7. Townsend v. Richland County

    190 S.C. 270 (S.C. 1939)   Cited 50 times
    Observing the law-making authority of the government rests with the legislature

    Mr. J.Q. Marshall, for appellant, cites: Special legislation: 165 S.C. 115; 161 S.E., 869; 73 S.C. 194; 52 S.E., 960; 182 S.C. 249; 189 S.E., 196; 175 S.C. 481; 179 S.E., 501; 196 S.E., 547; 60 S.C. 501; 39 S.E., 5; 2 S.W., 123. As to office of Master being created by specialAct: 80 S.C. 518; 61 S.E., 1009; 170 S.C. 242; 170 S.E., 270; 148 S.C. 118; 145 S.E., 695; 167 S.C. 467; 166 S.E., 637. Legislative intention: 180 S.C. 491; 186 S.E., 395; 180 S.C. 329; 185 S.E., 491; 177 S.C. 286; 181 S.E., 30; 104 S.C. 342; 88 S.E., 894; 82 S.C. 242; 64 S.E., 238. Constitutionality of Act: 76 S.C. 39; 56 S.E., 544. Mr. Wm. Elliott, Jr., for respondent, cites: Constitutionalityof Act: 182 S.C. 249; 189 S.E., 196; 196 S.E., 547; 6 R.C.L. 89; 235 U.S. 571; 59 L.Ed., 364; 217 U.S. 524; 54 L.Ed., 868; 219 U.S. 128; 55 L.Ed., 128; 225 U.S. 540; 56 L.Ed., 1197; 226 U.S. 217; 57 L.Ed., 193; 226 U.S. 260; 57 L.Ed., 212; Ann. Cas., 1914-B, 71; 226 U.S. 390; 57 L.Ed., 267; 232 U.S. 531; 58 L.Ed., 713; 233 U.S. 642; 58 L.Ed., 1135; 222 U.S. 251; 56 L.Ed., 185; 47 S.C. 75; 25 S.E., 39. Special legislation: 59 S.C. 110; 37 S.E., 226; 60 S.C. 501; 39 S.E., 5; 66 S.C. 229; 44 S.E., 790; 66 S.C. 219; 44 S.E., 797. Power of Legislature to create countyboards and offices: 61 S.C. 205; 39 S.E., 381; 1

  8. S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Union County

    162 S.C. 356 (S.C. 1931)   Cited 2 times

    Messrs. Haynsworth Haynsworth and Barron, Barron Barron, for appellant, cite: Notes properly executed: 3 Civ. Code, 1922, Sec. 1943, 1944; 33 Stat., 136; 35 Stat., 186; 10 S.C. 141; 68 U.S. 291; 99 U.S. 86; 161 U.S. 434; 184 U.S. 302; 68 U.S. 384; 81 U.S. 282; 82 U.S. 355; 94 U.S. 631; 190 U.S. 437. County bound by recitalsin notes: 173 U.S. 255; 161 U.S. 434; 212 U.S. 58; 208 Fed., 101; 116 Fed., 838; 12 S.C. 200; 39 S.C. 298; 78 S.C. 269; 95 S.C. 403; 120 S.C. 68; 44 S.C. 319; 115 S.C. 183. Notes valid even if recitals incorrect: 161 U.S. 434; 113 U.S. 227; 94 U.S. 202; 44 C.C.A., 75. Mr. John K. Hamblin, for respondent, cites: Powers ofBoard must be exercised strictly in accord with authority: 24 S.C. 543. Legislature can validate what it might previouslyhave authorized: 21 S.C. 414; 30 S.C. 586; 80 S.C. 518; 61 S.E., 1009; 92 S.C. 313; 75 S.E., 503; 117 S.C. 516. Power of a county to borrow money: 15 Wall, 566; 94 U.S. 255; 111 U.S. 400; 138 U.S. 673; 144 U.S. 173; 149 S.C. 78. Notes invalid: 62 S.C. 337; 81 S.C. 419; 87 S.C. 8; 149 S.C. 78; 66 S.C. 154. Purchasers of County notes must ascertain authority forissue: 44 C.J., 1244; 66 S.C. 140; 44 S.E., 569; 12 S.C. 200; 101 U.S. 693; 113 S.C. 407; 102 S.E., 755; 149 S.C. 76; 146 S.E., 675. October 13, 1931.

  9. Williamson v. Richards, Governor

    158 S.C. 534 (S.C. 1930)   Cited 33 times
    In Williamson v. Richards, Governor, 158 S.C. 534, 155 S.E., 890, 891, we find the following: "The objection that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the action can be made at any stage of the proceedings, either in the circuit or in the Supreme Court, even without the requirement of notice.

    It is a well-settled general rule that the Legislature, by a curative or validating statute which is necessarily retrospective in character and retroactive in effect can `validate any act which it might originally have authorized.' State v. Whitesides, 30 S.C. 579, 9 S.E., 661, 3 L.R.A., 777; State v. Neely, 30 S.C. 587, 9 S.E., 664, 3 L.R.A., 672; Hodge v. School District, 80 S.C. 518, 61 S.E., 1009; Dove v. Kirkland, 92 S.C. 313, 75 S.E., 503; Lucas v. Barringer, 120 S.C. 68, 112 S.E., 746. Obviously, the General Assembly possessed the same powers to re-enact, with retroactive effect, the Act of 1914, and the Act of 1921, amendatory thereof, that it had to enact the said statutes originally."

  10. Green v. City of Rock Hill

    149 S.C. 234 (S.C. 1929)   Cited 64 times
    In Green v. Cityof Rock Hill, 149 S.C. 234, 147 S.E., 346, it was held that a contract made by a city to extend its water mains and sewers, and to give access thereto in consideration of services performed or property conveyed to the city by the contractee, is not invalid and is not ultra vires nor in derogation of the city's police powers.

    It is a well-settled general rule that the Legislature, by a curative or validating statute which is necessarily retrospective in character and retroactive in effect, can "validate any Act which it might originally have authorized." State v. Whitesides, 30 S.C. 579, 9 S.E., 661, 3 L.R.A., 777; State v. Neely, 30 S.C. 587, 9 S.E., 664, 3 L.R.A., 672; Hodge v. School District, 80 S.C. 518, 61 S.E., 1009; Dove v. Kirkland, 92 S.C. 313, 75 S.E., 503; Lucas v. Barringer, 120 S.C. 68, 112 S.E., 746. Obviously, the General Assembly possessed the same powers to reenact, with retroactive effect, the Act of 1914, and the Act of 1921 amendatory thereof, that it had to enact the said statutes originally. It is not contended that these Acts as originally enacted were invalid. If, however, they were unconstitutional, in that they infringed the constitutional provisions against special legislation, there can be no doubt that the organization thereunder of the municipal government of Rock Hill constituted the municipality a municipal corporation de facto, and the members of its City Council defacto officers of the corporation.