FOWLER v. CITY OF ANDERSON et al

Messrs. William P. Greene and Dickson Miller, for appellant, cite: Where there is doubt as to whether a power to forbid is conferred upon a city by statute the doubt will be resolved against the city: 20 Enc. L., 1140. Provision to Act of 1924; 33 Stat., 893, is violative of Art. 3, Sec. 17, Const., 1895; 16 S.C. 47; 68 S.C. 148; 79 S.C. 191; 91 S.C. 450; 80 S.C. 130; 116 S.C. 193. Act constitutes destruction of business without due process of law: 45 Sou., 725. Messrs. Sullivan Sullivan, for respondent, cite: Inconsistent laws for different localities are constitutionally permissible: 21 S.C. 292. Title sufficiently explains purpose of act: 83 S.C. 232; 109 S.C. 413; 58 S.C. 415; 71 S.C. 457; Ann. Cas., 1916-D, 104; 78 A.S.R., 941. If there is doubt it should be resolved in favor of the act: 64 A.S.R., 64; 122 S.C. 476.