Summary
In Hobbs v. Virginia National Bank, 147 Va. 802, 128 S.E. 46, 133 S.E. 595, Crump, P., in an able and exhaustive opinion, set out the principles which apply for ascertaining the liability of partners in a trading or commercial partnership with respect to a third person for the acts of a partner.
Summary of this case from Holloway v. SmithOpinion
11774
May 26, 1925.
Suit in the original jurisdiction by R. Winstead against R.I. Williams, Mayor, and others, to enjoin the Town of Mullins from issuance of bonds voted. Petition dismissed, and injunction refused.
Mr. C.S. Monteith, for petitioner, cites: Bonded indebtedness limited: Const. of 1895, Art. VII, Sec. 7; Const. of 1895, Art. X, Sec. 5. Case governed by: 48 S.C. 395. Cases distinguished: 122 S.E., 257; 123 S.E., 184; 126 S.E., 544.
Messrs. R.B. Harrelson and Lide McCandlish, for respondents, cite: Bonded indebtedness limited: Const. of 1895, Art. X, Sec. 5. Fifteen per cent limitation construed: 121 S.E., 257; 123 S.E., 834; 126 S.E., 544.
May 26, 1925. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This is a petition for injunction to prohibit the Town of Mullins from the issuance of bonds voted. The case involves but a single issue:
"Can a city or town issue bonds, exclusive of water, sewer, and light bonds, to the full amount of 8 per centum of the assessed value of property therein, regardless of the bonded debt of other political subdivisions covering in whole or in part the said city or town?"
This Court has laid down the following principle in Elliott et al. v. Heyward et al., 121 S.E., 257:
"The county is a unit, and is entitled to go to the limit of 8 per cent. in issuing and selling bonds. The bonded indebtedness of a county is indivisible. It is upon the entire county, and in the hands of the holders of the bonds the payment is enforceable against the entire county, as a whole and as a unit, and the bondholders cannot be required to resort to a subdivision of the whole for a payment of a proportionate share of the bonds."
That principle is reaffirmed in Banks v. School District, etc., 129 S.C. 218; 123 S.E., 834, and in Bagnall v. Clarendon Orangeburg Bridge District, etc., 131 S.C. 109; 126 S.E., 644.
The petition is dismissed, and injunction refused. The Town of Mullins has authority to issue the bonds in question.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN concur.
MR. JUSTICE MARION concurs in result.