Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Croft, Aiken Croft and Cothran, Dean Cothran, for appellant. Messrs. Croft, Aiken Croft cite: The office of recorder was created under the act of 1902 and not under the act of 1904: 23 Stat. 1048; 24 Stat. 397; 36 Ill. 385; 29 Ala. 52; 75 Ky. 363. Authority to create inferior courts: Con. 1895, art. V, sec. 1; 11 Am. Rep. 415; 11 Cyc. 702. What power do said acts confer on the city? 69 N.W. 1094; 45 Am. St. R. 650; 2 Wn. 137; 13 Am. R. 716; 8 Cyc. 830; 23 P. 203. The legislature having created the court, the city cannot abolish it: 14 Or. 243; 38 Ga. 542; 3 Hill (N.Y.) 615; 84 S.C. 487; 74 Am. Dec. 583; 28 Cyc. 265. A doubtful statute should not be declared unconstitutional: 42 S.C. 293; 58 Ark. 407; Cool. Con. Lim. 157, 200, 203, 208; 83 Cal. 111; 82 Ia. 312; 30 Ia. 9; 72 Cal. 462. There is no estoppel here: 13 S.C. 370; 48 S.C. 226; 25 Conn. 118, 250; 96 U.S. 720; Big. on Est. 441. Plaintiff did not abandon the office: 14 Or. 243; 29 Cyc. 1404; Big. on Est. 463; 15 Ia. 538. Messrs. McCullough Blythe, contra, cite: The courts are without jurisdiction of this proceeding: 32 Cyc. 1414; Code of Proc. 424, 428 et seq.; 84 S.C. 489; 66 S.C. 5; 78 S.C. 176; 80 S.C. 69; 5 Rich. L. 304; 98 U.S. 71; 66 S.C. 5; 33 S.C. 612. This question may be first raised here: 25 S.C. 389; 28 S.C. 315; 37 S.C. 415. The city had the right to abolish this office: 2 S.C. 81; 19 S.C. 118; McQuillin on Corp., sec. 231; Mech. on Pub. Of., sec. 466; 23 Stat. 1048; 24 Stat. 397; 22 P. 278; 41 N.E. 359; 67 N.E. 450; 37 S.W. 951; 52 P. 602; 47 S.E. 972; 43 N.E. 554; 32 At. R. 78; 62 At. 191. Plaintiff having acquiesced in the action of council is now precluded from questioning its right to abolish it: Machem on Pub. Of., sec. 485; 23 Ency. 607; 53 N.E. 633.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Croft, Aiken Croft and Cothran, Dean Cothran, for appellant. Messrs. Croft, Aiken Croft cite: The office of recorder was created under the act of 1902 and not under the act of 1904: 23 Stat. 1048; 24 Stat. 397; 36 Ill. 385; 29 Ala. 52; 75 Ky. 363. Authority to create inferior courts: Con. 1895, art. V, sec. 1; 11 Am. Rep. 415; 11 Cyc. 702. What power do said acts confer on the city? 69 N.W. 1094; 45 Am. St. R. 650; 2 Wn. 137; 13 Am. R. 716; 8 Cyc. 830; 23 P. 203. The legislature having created the court, the city cannot abolish it: 14 Or. 243; 38 Ga. 542; 3 Hill (N.Y.) 615; 84 S.C. 487; 74 Am. Dec. 583; 28 Cyc. 265. A doubtful statute should not be declared unconstitutional: 42 S.C. 293; 58 Ark. 407; Cool. Con. Lim. 157, 200, 203, 208; 83 Cal. 111; 82 Ia. 312; 30 Ia. 9; 72 Cal. 462. There is no estoppel here: 13 S.C. 370; 48 S.C. 226; 25 Conn. 118, 250; 96 U.S. 720; Big. on Est. 441. Plaintiff did not abandon the office: 14 Or. 243; 29 Cyc. 1404; Big. on Est. 463; 15 Ia. 538. Messrs. McCullough Blythe, contra, cite: The courts are without jurisdiction of this proceeding: 32 Cyc. 1414; Code of Proc. 424, 428 et seq.; 84 S.C. 489; 66 S.C. 5; 78 S.C. 176; 80 S.C. 69; 5 Rich. L. 304; 98 U.S. 71; 66 S.C. 5; 33 S.C. 612. This question may be first raised here: 25 S.C. 389; 28 S.C. 315; 37 S.C. 415. The city had the right to abolish this office: 2 S.C. 81; 19 S.C. 118; McQuillin on Corp., sec. 231; Mech. on Pub. Of., sec. 466; 23 Stat. 1048; 24 Stat. 397; 22 P. 278; 41 N.E. 359; 67 N.E. 450; 37 S.W. 951; 52 P. 602; 47 S.E. 972; 43 N.E. 554; 32 At. R. 78; 62 At. 191. Plaintiff having acquiesced in the action of council is now precluded from questioning its right to abolish it: Machem on Pub. Of., sec. 485; 23 Ency. 607; 53 N.E. 633.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

STONE v. MAHON.

May, 9, 1911. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE GARY.

This is a proceeding, in which a rule was issued requiring the defendant to show, by what authority he discharged the duties of the office of recorder, in the city of Greenville.

The facts are fully stated, in the order of his Honor, the presiding Judge, discharging the rule to show cause; and, his conclusion is fully sustained by the authorities which he cites.

The authorities cited by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, are not in conflict with the case of Hardy v. Reamer, 84 S.C. 487, 66 S.E. 678.

Appeal dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE WOODS did not sit in this case.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

STONE v. MAHON
(May 9, 1911)