Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Berry v. Milliken

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 11, 1959No. 17545Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLegge, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Concurring in the conclusions of the majority opinion as to the other constitutional issues presented in this case, I find myself unable to agree that the fifteen per cent overall debt limitation prescribed by Section 5 of Article X is not applicable here.

That section is set out in full in the majority opinion, and need not be reproduced here. Its manifest purpose is to protect property within, “any territory of this State” overlapped by two or more political subdivisions or municipal corporations against excessive taxation, by forbidding their…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Todd v. City of LaurensSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
  2. Bagnall v. Clarendon & Orangeburg Bridge Dist.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
  3. Elliott v. HeywardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
  4. Banks v. School District No. 18Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
  5. Winstead v. Williams, MayorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API