33:T516,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Beacham v. City of Greenville, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 158","datePublished":"1916-06-30","legislationDate":"1916-06-30","citation":"Beacham v. City of Greenville, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 158 (S.C. 1916)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","description":"Read the full text of Beacham v. City of Greenville (Beacham v. City of Greenville, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 158 (S.C. 1916)). This legal opinion, filed in 1916-06-30, from the Supreme Court of South Carolina discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/beacham-v-city-of-greenville-3882934"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/beacham-v-city-of-greenville-3882934","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Beacham v. City of Greenville, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Beacham v. City of Greenville, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 158 (S.C. 1916)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}35:T43c,

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an action for injunction to restrain the city of Greenville from issuing bonds, to the amount of $40,000, for the mity hospital, which were voted at an election ordered for the purpose of deciding that question.

The appellant’s attorneys in their argument state that it is impossible for them to differentiate this case from that of Seegers v. Gibbes, 72 S. C. 532, 52 S. E. 586, and they freely admit that if the Court adheres to the ruling therein announced, the city has the right to exclude from the calculations the two disputed items. This Court does adhere to its ruling in that case, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed, for the reasons stated by his Honor, the presiding Judge*