This action was brought by a freeholder and taxpayer of the City of Greenville to enjoin the corporate authorities thereof from issuing general obligation bonds of the City of Greenville in the sum of $225,000.00, for the purpose of improving and extending its municipal airport facilities. The case comes before us on an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
It is first contended that the purpose for which the pro-ceecls of the bonds are to be expended is neither a public purpose within the contemplation of Article 8, Section 3 of the Constitution, nor a corporate purpose within the contemplation of Article 8, Section 6 and Article 10, Section 5.
Although under the Uniform Airports Act of 1937, Sections 71 12-31 to 7112-42, inclusive, of the 1942 Code, municipalities, counties and other political subdivisions are authorized to use public funds for the construction, maintenance and operation of airports, and no doubt some
of
*64
them have done so, the power of a municipality to levy a tax or issue bonds for this purpose has never been decided by this Court. It was held in
Gentry v. Taylor,
192 S. C. 145,
The limitation imposed by Article 10, Section 6 does not apply to municipalities. The sole question here is whether the proposed expenditure is for a public and corporate purpose. This question was suggested but not decided in the two cases above mentioned. As pointed out in
Parrott v. Gourdin et al., supra,
and
Powell et al. v. Thomas et al.,
214 S. C. 376,
In
Parrott v. Gourdin et al., supra,
we had occasion to observe: “With the development of aviation, the Courts of many jurisdictions in recent years have been called upon to determine whether the establishment and maintenance of a public airport is a corporate purpose and they appear to hold rather uniformly that such expenditure does constitute a corporate purpose.” [205 S. C. 364,
Our attention is called to the fact that in 1944 the Constitution, Art. 8, § 7, was amended so as to authorize the City of Orangeburg to issue bonds for the purpose of establishing and maintaining an airport. 43 St. at L. 2321. In
Brailsford v. Walker, Mayor et al.,
205 S. C. 228,
It is next contended that if the bonds are held to be valid, the proceeds therefrom may be expended only in improving and extending the Greenville Municipal Airport located near the Greenville-Laurens Highway. It is alleged in the complaint that the corporate authorities of the City intend to use all or a part of said funds on an airfield, commonly known as the Greenville Army Air Base, located several miles from the site of the existing Green-ville Municipal Airport. Appellant seeks to enjoin the expenditure of the funds for the latter purpose on the ground that the petition of the freeholders upon which the election was held contemplated only the improvement and extension of the existing airport near the Greenville-Laurens Highway. The petition of the freeholders states that the proceeds *66 of the bonds “shall be expended for improvements and enlargements of the Greenville Municipal Airport.” We think this language is sufficiently broad and comprehensive to include not only the airport existing when the petition was filed and the election held, but any other airport facilities subsequently acquired by the City of Greenville, even though not contiguous to the one then in existence.
The injunction sought is denied; the order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed; and the complaint is dismissed.