Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910

Hardy v. Reamer

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 11, 1910 · Woods

66 S.E. 678; 84 S.C. 487; 1910 S.C. LEXIS 167 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

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: 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 .

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.