PICKMAN v. GEORGETOWN COUNTY et al

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

11601

Attorney(S)

Mr. Capers G. Barr, for appellant, cites: Verification of complaint: Sec. 418, Subdivision 2, Vol. 1, Code 1922; 63 S.C. 182; 102 S.C. 283. As to injunctions: 37 S.C. 223; 67 S.C. 84. Error to refuse the temporary injunction: 60 S.C. 568; 67 S.C. 84; 59 S.C. 371; 63 S.C. 201; 63 S.C. 348; 54 S.C. 457; 62 S.C. 196; 51 S.C. 433. Right to an order of injunction: 60 S.C. 568; 25 S.C. 41; 54 S.C. 345. Action for permanent injunction: 54 S.C. 457. De facto and de jure officers: 118 U.S. 425; Note 74 N.J.L., 455. Prima facie case entitling plaintiff to relief demanded: 67 S.C. 84; 51 S.C. 433; 34 S.C. 345. Mr. Maham W. Pyatt, for respondents, cites: Verification of complaints 28 S.C. 181; 33 S.C. 251; 50 S.C. 201. De facto officers: 7 S.C. 24; 35 S.C. 196; 85 S.C. 156; 92 S.C. 323. Perscriptive right: 1 Strob., 110. Order refusing temporary injunction correct: 88 S.C. 118; 87 S.C. 566; 69 S.C. 408; 86 S.C. 408. Condemnation proceedings: Const. of S.C. and Sec. 2907, Vol. 3, Code 1922.

Judges

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN (concurring in result):

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

PICKMAN v. GEORGETOWN COUNTY ET AL.

November 11, 1924. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE WATTS.

For the reasons assigned by his Honor, Judge Shipp, it is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MARION concurs in result.

MR. JUSTICE FRASER disqualified, did not participate.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN (concurring in result):

I concur in the result upon the ground that the verification of the complaint is insufficient, and that the application is not supported by affidavits.

I do not agree to the statement: "Even if the Acts were unconstitutional, the acts of a de facto officer cannot be attacked, except by some one holding the lawful title of the office."

This is, generally speaking, true, but the principle does not apply where there is no office legally created; the rule being that where there is no office, there can neither be an officer de jure nor de facto. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425; 6 S.Ct., 1121; 30 L.Ed., 178. Carleton v. People, 10 Mich., 259. Lang v. Bayonne, 74 N.J. Law, 455; 68 A., 90; 15 L.R.A. (N.S.), 93; 122 Am. St. Rep., 391; 12 Ann. Cas., 961.

PICKMAN v. GEORGETOWN COUNTY ET AL.

Comments