Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1921

Frederick v. Brown

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided February 28, 1921 · Gary

106 S.E. 30; 115 S.C. 415; 1921 S.C. LEXIS 18 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. N.J. Frederick and Butler J. Nance , for appellants, cite: Error to dissolve temporary injunction on affidavits: 54 S.C. 457 . Such injunctions should be continued when essential to the assertion and preservation of plaintiff's rights, and when he has no other adequate remedy at law; 51 S.C. 433 ; 69 S.C. 156 ; High on Injunctions, (4th Ed.) Sec. 1508-9-10-12. Columbia has been place of business for 40 years. 14 C.J. 339, 341, 342: Members of the organization may enjoin unauthorized removal of the office: High on Injunctions , 4th Ed. Sec. 1223c. Messrs. Melton Belser and Edw. L. Craig , for respondents, cite: Matter complained of is one of internal regulation and will not be disturbed by the Courts: 29 Cyc. 199. Courts will rarely interfere with exercise of discretionary powers in corporate bodies: 20 N.Y. Supp. 437. Must exhaust remedies within the order before appealing to the Courts: 30 N.Y. Supp. 885. Removal must produce injury and violate rights of plaintiffs to entitle them to injunction: Code Proc. 1912, Sec. 270. Court will not grant injunction pendente lite unless it is reasonably essential to protect legal

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary.

This is an action for the sole purpose 'of an injunction. The facts are stated in the order of his Honor the County Judge, who refused the application for a temporary injunction; and the plaintiffs appealed. They have failed to satisfy this Court that his Honor the County Judge erroneously exercised his discretion in refusing to grant the injunction pendente lite.

Appeal dismissed.

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