Jackson v. South Carolina Colored State Fair Ass'n

Supreme Court of South Carolina May 14, 1918

Jackson v. South Carolina Colored State Fair Ass'n, 96 S.E. 116 (S.C. 1918)

109 S.C. 283; 1918 S.C. LEXIS 224

Watts, Messrs, Hydrick, Fraser, Ci-Iiee, Gary, Gage

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Peurifoy, refusing to appoint a receiver and refusing to ■continue an ex parte témpora^ restraining order granted by his Honor, Judge M. T. Smith.

*285 1, 2 His Honor, Judge Peurifoy, inquired into the facts of the case sufficiently for the purpose, not of deciding the case on its merits, but to determine whether or not in the exercise of his discretion he would appoint or refuse to appoint a receiver and grant the temporary restraining order asked for. This he had clearly the right to do, and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him he refused both. We see no error in his order as complained of.

The appeal is dismissed, and order appealed from affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Fraser concur. Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Gage absent.

Reference

Full Case Name: Jackson Et Al. v. South Carolina Colored State Fair Association Et Al.
Cited By: 8 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Receivers—Appointment—Scope op Inquiry.—In deciding- whether a receiver should he appointed, a Court is not required to make such an inquiry into facts of case as will enable it to pass upon merits thereof, hut need merely inquire into the facts sufficiently to determine whether in the exercise of discretion he will appoint receiver. 2. Injunctions—Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order—Scope of Inquiry.-—Where Court is asked to continue ex parte restraining order, its inquiry into facts of case is sufficient, it enables him to pass upon necessity for such order, and need not be sufficient for purposes of deciding merits of case.