State v. City of Columbia
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Moore, J., Richland, Fall term, 1919. Action by the State against the City of Columbia to recover taxes on certain property belonging to the city. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. cite: Municipal property is not subject to taxation as there is no lazv taxing same: 30 N. J. Eq. 667; 84 Va. 906; 63 S. C. 70; 20 S. C. 118; 117 U. S. 152; 29 L. Ed. 845; 13 Rich.
Read the full summary
Before Moore, J., Richland, Fall term, 1919. Action by the State against the City of Columbia to recover taxes on certain property belonging to the city. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. cite: Municipal property is not subject to taxation as there is no lazv taxing same: 30 N. J. Eq. 667; 84 Va. 906; 63 S. C. 70; 20 S. C. 118; 117 U. S. 152; 29 L. Ed. 845; 13 Rich. Eq. 56; Cooley Taxation (3d Ed.) 262-263-, 546; Const. 1895, art. X, sec. 3; art. X, sec. 5; art. VIII, sec. 6; 108 S. C. 244; 89 S. C. 511; 1 Civ. Code 1912, secs. 287,-293, 288, 295, 340; Dillon Mun. Corp. (5th…
1DissentJustice Fraser
I dissent. The language of the Constitution is “used exclusively for public use.” If the language had been “used exclusively for private use,” the construction placed upon it by the majority of inis Court would be proper. Parks and playgrounds are for public use, but the use is free to all. The $41,000 expended would have been expended if the whole building had been used exclusively for the public use, and the $20,000 is profit. That is, it is a saving of $20,000, and $20,000 saved is $20,000 made. If these figures were reversed, and the receipts were $40,000 and -expenditures $20,000, it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- City of Columbia v. TindalSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895