HARDY v. REAMER

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

7418

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Allen J. Green and Green Green and B.L. Abney, for appellants. Messrs. Green Green cite: Plaintiff's remedy is not by injunction: Code of Proc., 1902, 424, 428; 2 S.C. 81; 80 S.C. 64; 78 S.C. 172; 66 S.C. 1; 2 High on Inj., 1315; 8 Current L., 288, 108 N.W., 440; 78 Ill., 277; Dill Mun. Corp., 286; 124 U.S. 212; 65 Hun., 208; 32 Barb., 35; 15 Abb. Proc., 129; 1 Freeman's Ch., 222; 51 Minn., 355; 77 N.C. 280; 106 S.W. 667; 79 Pac., 353; 29 Cyc., 1389; 145 Cal., 691. Council may repeal the ordinance and abolish the office: 78 S.C. 171; 2 Abbott's Mun. Corp., 1456; 2 S.C. 81; 19 S.C. 114; 1 Dill., sec. 231; 100 Ky., 166; 28 Cyc., 482; 22 R.L.A., 653; 44 Tenn., 431; 149 N. Y., 215; 23 Mo., 22; 142 Ind., 117, 162. Messrs. Lyles Lyles, contra, cite: Equity will protect the possession of the actual incumbent of a public office: 5 L.R.A., 403; 8 So., 880; 39 So., 631; 44 So., 689; 87 N.W., 449; 61 Am. St., 893; 13 Kan., 41; 6 Pac., 938; 108 N.W., 440; 48 N.E., 1025. Party in possession cannot bring quo warranto under sec. 428, Code of Proc: 5 L.R.A., 404; 2 S.C. 81; 33 S.C. 612; 66 S.C. 1; 78 S.C. 171; 80 S.C. 64. City Council cannot abolish this board: Dill. Mun. Corp., secs. 210, 974-5; 28 Cyc., 488-9; 74 N.E., 177; 20 Md., 335; 31 Md. 462; 2 S.C. 81; 28 Cyc., 486; 15 Md., 376; 9 L.R.A., 76; Dill., sec., 96; 28 Cyc., 694, 486-7; Dill., secs., 58-61; 74 N.E., 177; 15 Md., 376; 28 Cyc., 482; Dill., sec., 231; 56 S.W. 596: 15 Md., 376; 20 Md., 335; 31 Md., 462; 74 N.E., 177; 12 Ga. 404; Dill., secs. 89, 91, 317; 38 Ga. 543; 3 Hill, 612; 31 Md., 467. Council only appoint to State office: 2 L.R.A., 68; 4 N.J.L., 463; 53 Conn., 76; 4 Abb., Pr. R., 35; 1 Cranch, 136; 4 N.J.L., 463; 79 N.E., 1073; 44 Conn., 601; 133 Mass. 204.

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

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

7418

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Allen J. Green and Green Green and B.L. Abney, for appellants. Messrs. Green Green cite: Plaintiff's remedy is not by injunction: Code of Proc., 1902, 424, 428; 2 S.C. 81; 80 S.C. 64; 78 S.C. 172; 66 S.C. 1; 2 High on Inj., 1315; 8 Current L., 288, 108 N.W., 440; 78 Ill., 277; Dill Mun. Corp., 286; 124 U.S. 212; 65 Hun., 208; 32 Barb., 35; 15 Abb. Proc., 129; 1 Freeman's Ch., 222; 51 Minn., 355; 77 N.C. 280; 106 S.W. 667; 79 Pac., 353; 29 Cyc., 1389; 145 Cal., 691. Council may repeal the ordinance and abolish the office: 78 S.C. 171; 2 Abbott's Mun. Corp., 1456; 2 S.C. 81; 19 S.C. 114; 1 Dill., sec. 231; 100 Ky., 166; 28 Cyc., 482; 22 R.L.A., 653; 44 Tenn., 431; 149 N. Y., 215; 23 Mo., 22; 142 Ind., 117, 162. Messrs. Lyles Lyles, contra, cite: Equity will protect the possession of the actual incumbent of a public office: 5 L.R.A., 403; 8 So., 880; 39 So., 631; 44 So., 689; 87 N.W., 449; 61 Am. St., 893; 13 Kan., 41; 6 Pac., 938; 108 N.W., 440; 48 N.E., 1025. Party in possession cannot bring quo warranto under sec. 428, Code of Proc: 5 L.R.A., 404; 2 S.C. 81; 33 S.C. 612; 66 S.C. 1; 78 S.C. 171; 80 S.C. 64. City Council cannot abolish this board: Dill. Mun. Corp., secs. 210, 974-5; 28 Cyc., 488-9; 74 N.E., 177; 20 Md., 335; 31 Md. 462; 2 S.C. 81; 28 Cyc., 486; 15 Md., 376; 9 L.R.A., 76; Dill., sec., 96; 28 Cyc., 694, 486-7; Dill., secs., 58-61; 74 N.E., 177; 15 Md., 376; 28 Cyc., 482; Dill., sec., 231; 56 S.W. 596: 15 Md., 376; 20 Md., 335; 31 Md., 462; 74 N.E., 177; 12 Ga. 404; Dill., secs. 89, 91, 317; 38 Ga. 543; 3 Hill, 612; 31 Md., 467. Council only appoint to State office: 2 L.R.A., 68; 4 N.J.L., 463; 53 Conn., 76; 4 Abb., Pr. R., 35; 1 Cranch, 136; 4 N.J.L., 463; 79 N.E., 1073; 44 Conn., 601; 133 Mass. 204.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

HARDY v. REAMER, MAYOR.

January 11, 1910. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE WOODS.

The facts of this case, and the material questions of law involved are fully set out in the decree of the Circuit Judge. Counsel for the appellants, the mayor and aldermen of the city of Columbia, have submitted strong arguments in support of their exceptions, but we have reached the conclusion that there is no error. The reasoning of the Circuit Judge is so convincing, and covers the issues so clearly, that we adopt it as the opinion of this Court.

The judgment of this Court is, that the decree of the Circuit Judge be affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

HARDY v. REAMER, MAYOR.

Comments