
    James Shoolbred and Wife against The Corporation of the City of Charleston.
    
      October, 1796.
    
    Where an act of the legisla-ture imposes corporation,to “ímen? to Pa7for buiw-mgs pulled down to ope*. mandamus * pela perform" ^ty. °f SUS Ev.utY parish in the ged to keep roads Síreand pairf^-u-ithhi ^^and also to defray the necessary ct± pense.
    UPON a motion to shew cause why a mandamus should , , . , not issue to compel the corporation to make an assessment on the city, to pay for a house pulled down in order to open Meeting-street. '
    The facts in this case were not disputed. Mrs. Shool-1 ' bred had inherited through her maternal ancestry a lot of land at the upper end of Meeting-street, on which the house in question had been built by one of her ancestors. It was a valuable one, and had several convenient out-buildings attached to it, fit for the accommodation of a genteel family. At the enclosures which surrounded this mansion, Meeting-street formerly terminated, before the old fortifications which surrounded the town were demolished, and a street now called George-street, which ran off at right angles in a west-wardly direction to King-street, from the end of Meeting-street, formed one of the great avenues leading to and from w the city. Bat upon the return of the blessings of peace, after the revolutionary war, when all the fortifications in the rear of the city became useless, and its population had greatly increased, it became necessary, for the accommodation and convenience of the citizens, to open Meeting-street from the point where it formerly ended, as it would then form one of the greatest and most convenient communications between the town and country. The buildings in question, however, stood in the way, and without their removal the street could not be opened. An application was therefore made to the legislature, for permission to pull them down and remove them out of the way, in order to run the street through the lot of ground on which they stood, to the unimproved grounds in the rear of them. The legislature, being satisfied of the necessity and utility of opening this street, in the year 1795 passed an act authorizing the running of the street through this lot, and appointing seven commissioners, therein named, to fix upon the compensation which it was reasonable should be made to Mr. and Mrs. Shooibred., for the injury they were likely to sustain by the loss of the buildings and gardens through which the street was to run, to be defrayed by an assessment, to be made by the corporation of the city of Charleston, on the inhabitants in general.
    This valuation, in pursuance of the powers given by the-act, was made by the commissioners, to the entire satisfaction of Mr. and Mrs. Shooibred. But a difficulty arose about the manner of making the assessment necessary to raise the sum requisite, agreeable to the appraisement.
    On the one hand, it was contended by the city wardens, that as this new street was continued over the boundary line of the city, through the parish of St. Philip and St. Michael, for two miles, up to the King-street road, and as the inhabitants above the city line would benefit by it quite as much, if not more, than those within the city limits, it was insisted on by them, as well as by a large proportion of the inhabitants, that the assessment ought to be made on the in* habitants of the parish generally, and not to be confined to those in the city only.
    To this it was answered by the commissioners of the roads and highways for the parish, that they had no objection to open and keep in repair this new road or street from the boundary line of the city, that is, from the north line of Boundary-street to the King-street road, but that the in-hábil mis above that line were not obliged by law either to work on the roads or streets, or to contribute to keep them in repair, below the city boundary. That the city of Charleston^ by its charter, formed a separate and exclusive jurisdiction within itself, and the corporation had the care and su-perintendance of all the streets, lanes and alleys in the city, and were bound to open and keep them in repair at the expense of the city alone. That it was very much for the convenience, as well as for the ornament and beauty of the city, that this street should be opened, and the obstructions removed out of the way ; for which reasons, they contended that the assessment should be made on the city only.
    The power of the legislature to pass the act was not called in question, but admitted on all hands; the only matter in dispute was the mode of making the assessment.
   The Judges,

after hearing counsel for and against the motion, were unanimously of opinion, that-the expense should be borne by the inhabitants of the city of Charb-ston alone. That it was a general principle, which had pervaded every part of the state, from its early establishment to the present day, that every county, parish and district throughout the state, should lay off-and keep in repair its own roads, bridges and causeys ; (except in cases where the counties or parishes were divided by rivers or water-courses ; in such cases, the bridges were to be built and kept in repair at the expense of the adjoining counties or parishes ,) and as a necessary incident thereto, should defray all the expenses necessarily attending the same.

That the demolition of those houses was essentially neces-sáry for the purpose of opening Meeting-street to the city boundary, and was for the convenience of the city. The money requisite, therefore, to defray the expense, should be raised by a tax or assessment on the taxable property of the citizens within its boundary. That the continuity of the road, and the advantage which the adjoining parishioners were to derive from it, made no sort of difference, as the advantage would be mutual on both sides. This did not, therefore, lessen the obligation of the city to lay open and-keep in repair the streets within its own jurisdiction. Our high roads were connected together and continued from the sea coast to the mountains, and through the state from North Carolina to Georgia, and it might as well be contended, that the man in the remotest part of the state should contribute his quota towards the expense, because he occasionally made use of Meeting-street, or any other highway at either extremity of the state. To avoid this inconvenience, the policy of our road laws and highway system had wisely provided agaiqst it, and had directed that every separate and distinct portion or division of the state should make and keep its roads and bridges in repair, within its own limits and .juris-, diction.

Rule for a mandamus made absolute.

Present, Burke, Grimke, Waties and Bat.  