*1 315 on con- turns the decision in which course, cases Of distinguished must be clearly negligence tributory ac- lack of on decision turns in the cases which from no Where the defendant. of on the part negligence tionable notwith- denied, is shown recovery is negligence actionable of lack his and of age in view injured the person, standing negligence. contributory with discretion, chargeable was not 433, 486. C., Cook, (2d), 13 S. Porter 196 E. v. S. affirmed.
Judgment Bonham, Associate Messrs. Mr. Chieb Jus- Justice H. Stukes, Judge and Hen- and Circuit E. tices Baker Acting concur. derson, Justice, Associate
15464 v. CITY OF COLLEGE TRUSTEES OF WOFFORD SPARTANBURG ET AL.
(23 (2d), 9) E.S.
321 *10 326 *13 Carlisle,
Messrs. Brown of Carlisle, & Spartanburg, for Counsel Appellant,
332 *16 Johnson, Johnson of Messrs. & Counsel Spartanburg, for Respondents, 11,
November 1942. CURIAM:
PER consideration, After due we the the are of that opinion Circuit, Honorable Henderson, H. who heard this case on E. has reached the conclusions and decision of the issues proper involved. This Court is considered de- satisfied with his well cree, Court, which it as the of and which the adopts opinion will be reported.
This is a written curiam in accord with re- opinion per in which cently rule to cases this Court adopted pertaining trial of the as its the decree unanimously adopts opinion Judge. and
Mr. Associate Bonham Chief Messrs. Justice concur. and StuicES Eishburne, Baker, Justices 8, December 1942.
On Petition for Rehearing. CURIAM.
PER in this for rehearing We have read with care the petition n case, the gave especially and we that Court' may state decree care to the consideration of the Circuit thoughtful us, its case, realizing in to that from which the came appeal therein, interested the institution to educational importance in our and we find the views expressed no reason to change opinion. Court, the counsel
In the to the the of presentation appeal ques- one laid almost the entirely upon for both stress parties in the con- Acts involved tion of of the constitutionality the for in the find nothing petition sideration of the issues. We the our that judgment which causes us to rehearing change the Acts relied in its that correct holding Circuit Court was *17 are the claimed by appellant to sustain the exemption upon conclusion and adhere to our unconstitutional. therefore We is af- be and the Court decision that decision of Circuit the firmed. did not the
However, that Judge it Circuit appears made in Paragraph the issues specifically pass upon d, and of the c, e complaint, 15, b, sub-paragraphs, are of the complaint of 15 Paragraph which sub-paragraphs as follows: due and “The lien for three or more
(b) years past taxes execution, issuance and levy to the of -expired prior attempted sale; execution, included a and sale levy “The
(c) attempted Collector, a commission Tax to the Special penalty, 10% 5% cost, in law and with- and a execution violation of the $2.00 an of the said of City Spartan- out of ordinance authority
335 as of the at burg, required by Large, Section 7470 Statutes 38, 128, 1933; Vol. 10, March page passed “No warrant of execution or was served (d) levy upon the or its or plaintiff tenants or its occupants predecessors, and no one or on behalf the acting for of defendants ever or levied took of for and on upon said possession property of behalf the of City Spartanburg. T.
(e) “I. said execution au- Williams issued without of law thority any or ordinance.”
It is therefore ordered the the that case be remanded to Circuit Court for its insofar as are action these matters con- cerned, and that alone.
Mr. and Chief Bonham Messrs. Associate Justice Baker, and concur. Stukes Fisiiburne Justices ET AL. COLLEGE CONVERSE v. OF CITY SPARTANBURG (23 (2d), E. 16) S.