Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1911

Stone v. Mahon

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 9, 1911 · Gary, Woods

88 S.C. 576; 71 S.E. 300; 1911 S.C. LEXIS 170

Counsel

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.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

*582 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.

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