DUKE POWER CO. v. BELL, COUNTY TREASURER

Messrs. Gregory Gregory for appellant, cite: Exemption statute: 34 Stat., 891. Exemption statute strictly construed: 37 Cyc., 890. Cooley Taxation, 4th Ed., Sec. 572; 16 S.Ct., 471; 6 U.S. 461; 89 U.S. 215; 99 U.S. 348; 143 U.S. 192; 64 A.L.R., 110; 25 A.L.R., 27; 153 Mass. 185; 69 L.R.A., 776; 115 S.C. 108; 151 Ky., 758. Statute to induce new plants, not enlargements or improvement of old: 143 Ky., 258; 149 Ky., 149; L.R.A., 1916-D, 108; 142 Ky., 759; 170 Ky., 557. Exemption is a gratuity and may be revoked: 26 R.C.L., 304; 22 S.Ct., 888; 19 Mich., 259. Exemption personal and not assignable: 26 R.C.L., 308; 205 U.S. 236; 239 U.S. 126; 49 S.E., 506; 3 S.Ct., 193; 21 S.Ct., 240; 5 S.Ct., 813; 23 S.Ct., 860; 28 S.Ct., 401; 89 Md., 89. Merger eliminated Great Falls Power Company: Cooley Taxation 4th Ed., Sec. 722; 205 U.S. 236; 60 L.R.A., 34; 7 R.C.L., 155; 3 Civ. Code 1922, page 1452; 92 U.S. 265; 14 S.Ct., 592. Exemption is discrimination against other corporations: 64 L.Ed., 989; 247 U.S. 350; 28 S.Ct., 7; 30 S.Ct., 287; 17 S.Ct., 255; 75 S.C. 62; 53 S.C. 259; 53 S.C. 285. Statute violates Section 1, Article 10, Constitution of S.C. 1895: 10 S.E., 845; 20 S.E., 526; 37 Cyc., 735-36; 3 S.Ct., 193; 255 U.S. 288; 21 S.Ct., 240; 14 S.Ct., 592; 101 U.S. 153; 37 S.Ct., 693; 41 Calif., 351; 13 Am. Rep., 143; 68 Ill., 530; 28 L.R.A., 65; 59 Ill., 142; 99 U.S. 309; 178 Pa. St., 171; 35 S.E., 73; 78 S.E., 807; 54 S.E., 729; 69 Ind., 375; 53 N.E., 168; 16 Am. Rep., 375; 43 S.E., 362; 52 S.E., 638; 68 L.R.A., 92; 2 A.L.R., 465; 9 Wis. 378; 3 Ohio St., 15; 30 L.R.A., 218; 34 L.R.A., 725; 12 A.L.R., 552; 106 Md., 281; 64 L.R.A., 34; 43 A.L.R., 673; 75 S.C. 62; 106 S.C. 185; 59 S.C. 396; 66 S.C. 37; 6 S.C. 1; 56 S.C. 516; 53 S.C. 259; 25 S.Ct., 303; 43 L.R.A., 498; 20 S.E., 526; 139 Miss., 675. " Public purpose." 23 S.C. 57; 87 U.S. 655; 106 U.S. 487; 111 Mass. 454; 6 Fed. Cases, 221; 64 N.Y., 91; 86 Fed., 597; 75 S.C. 34. Special act, when general law could be made applicable: 99 S.C. 475; 59 S.C. 110; 62 S.C. 247; 66 S.C. 219; 109 S.C. 1; 110 S.C. 505; 106 Md., 281. In Reply. Special act objectionable: 99 S.C. 377; 85 S.C. 186; 110 S.C. 505; 66 S.C. 219. Messrs. Williams Stewart, J.H. Marion and J.C. McGowan, for respondent, cite: Statute clear and unambiguous: 25 R.C.L., 960-961. Exemption was annexed to specific property and passed with property: 37 Cyc., 898; 95 Pac., 187; 119 N.W., 202; 71 Atlantic, 328; 75 S.C. 34; 30 Am. Dec., 423; 12 S.W. 685; 3 L.Ed., 303; 76 N.W., 217. Property enjoying immunity continues exempt in consolidated company: 117 U.S. 129; 92 U.S. 677; 15 Wall, 460. Power of exemption: 74 S.C. 433. Public purpose: 123 S.C. 272. Powers of municipal corporation: 1 Dillon, Mun. Corp., Sec. 89; 73 S.C. 83; 123 S.C. 272. Right to invoke due process clause applies only to corporations affected: 6 R.C.L., 89, 92; 132 S.E., 673. No discrimination against existing factories: 49 L.R.A., 604. No infringement of equal protection clause: 253 U.S. 412. General law not practicable: 76 S.C. 21; 121 S.C. 5.