Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Washington Clark, for appellant, cites: As to history of bonds in question: 12 S.C. 370; — Stats. 1908, p. 1372, secs. 2 and 3. Constitutionality of act granting exemption: Const. 1895, art. X, sec. 1. Power of legislature: Const. 1895, art. III, sec. 1; Cooley Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 126, 127; 15 N.Y. 532; 27 Vt. 140, 142; 13 N.Y. 378, 391; 19 Wall. 673; Cooley Const. Lim., secs. 87 and 182; 15 S.C. 592; 24 S.C. 68; 16 S.C. 34; 41 S.C. 233; 42 S.C. 298. Right to grant exemptions: 3 S.C. 359; 70 S.C. 433; Const., art. X, 1; VIII, 8; 6 Cranch. 128. Can executive officers question the constitutionality of act granting exemption: 80 S.C. 131; 16 S.C. 39; 30 S.C. 524; 43 S.C. 15 and 16; 67 S.C. 167; 47 L.R.A. 512; 46 Neb. 62; 19 Utah 18; 120 U.S. 97. Mr. C.T. Graydon, also for appellant, distinguishes 3 Wall. 573: Power of legislature: Cooley Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 126, 241; 15 S.C. 532; 27 Vt. 140; 13 N.Y. 378; 15 S.C. 592; 16 S.C. 34; 24 S.C. 68; 41 S.C. 233; 42 S.C. 298. Mr. Attorney General Peeples and Mr. Fred. H. Dominick, for respondent, cite: Acts 1892, p. 29; 1893, p. 481; 1912, p. 738; Const. 1895, art X, sec. 5. Mr. W.H. Townsend, also of counsel for respondent. The Circuit Judges having been called to the assistance of the Supreme Court,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Washington Clark, for appellant, cites: As to history of bonds in question: 12 S.C. 370; — Stats. 1908, p. 1372, secs. 2 and 3. Constitutionality of act granting exemption: Const. 1895, art. X, sec. 1. Power of legislature: Const. 1895, art. III, sec. 1; Cooley Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 126, 127; 15 N.Y. 532; 27 Vt. 140, 142; 13 N.Y. 378, 391; 19 Wall. 673; Cooley Const. Lim., secs. 87 and 182; 15 S.C. 592; 24 S.C. 68; 16 S.C. 34; 41 S.C. 233; 42 S.C. 298. Right to grant exemptions: 3 S.C. 359; 70 S.C. 433; Const., art. X, 1; VIII, 8; 6 Cranch. 128. Can executive officers question the constitutionality of act granting exemption: 80 S.C. 131; 16 S.C. 39; 30 S.C. 524; 43 S.C. 15 and 16; 67 S.C. 167; 47 L.R.A. 512; 46 Neb. 62; 19 Utah 18; 120 U.S. 97. Mr. C.T. Graydon, also for appellant, distinguishes 3 Wall. 573: Power of legislature: Cooley Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 126, 241; 15 S.C. 532; 27 Vt. 140; 13 N.Y. 378; 15 S.C. 592; 16 S.C. 34; 24 S.C. 68; 41 S.C. 233; 42 S.C. 298. Mr. Attorney General Peeples and Mr. Fred. H. Dominick, for respondent, cite: Acts 1892, p. 29; 1893, p. 481; 1912, p. 738; Const. 1895, art X, sec. 5. Mr. W.H. Townsend, also of counsel for respondent. The Circuit Judges having been called to the assistance of the Supreme Court,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK OF COLUMBIA v. SPIGNER, RICHLAND COUNTY TREASURER.

October 14, 1916. The opinion of the Court en banc was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY.

For the reasons stated by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, and upon the authority of Bank v. Neil, 106 S.C. 173, 90 S.E. 744, in which the opinion has just been filed, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES HYDRICK, GAGE and FRASER, and CIRCUIT JUDGES PRINCE, MEMMINGER, BOWMAN, SHIPP, SEASE, GARY, WILSON, SMITH and PEURIFOY, concur in the opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE WATTS was disqualified and did not sit in this case.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

CAROLINA NATL. BANK v. SPIGNER
(Oct 14, 1916)