Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924

Pickman v. Georgetown County

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided November 11, 1924 · Watts, Cothran, Marion, Fraser

125 S.E. 191; 130 S.C. 18; 1924 S.C. LEXIS 73 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Capers G. Barr , for appellant, cites: Verification of complaint: Sec. 418, Subdivision 2, Vol. 1, Code 1922; 63 S.C. 182 ; 102 S.C. 283 . As to injunctions: 37 S.C. 223 ; 67 S.C. 84 . Error to refuse the temporary injunction: 60 S.C. 568 ; 67 S.C. 84 ; 59 S.C. 371 ; 63 S.C. 201 ; 63 S.C. 348 ; 54 S.C. 457 ; 62 S.C. 196 ; 51 S.C. 433 . Right to an order of injunction: 60 S.C. 568 ; 25 S.C. 41 ; 54 S.C. 345 . Action for permanent injunction: 54 S.C. 457 . De facto and de jure officers: 118 U.S. 425 ; Note 74 N.J.L., 455 . Prima facie case entitling plaintiff to relief demanded: 67 S.C. 84 ; 51 S.C. 433 ; 34 S.C. 345 . Mr. Maham W. Pyatt , for respondents, cites: Verification of complaints 28 S.C. 181 ; 33 S.C. 251 ; 50 S.C. 201 . De facto officers: 7 S.C. 24 ; 35 S.C. 196 ; 85 S.C. 156 ; 92 S.C. 323 . Perscriptive right: 1 Strob., 110. Order refusing temporary injunction correct: 88 S.C. 118 ; 87 S.C. 566 ; 69 S.C. 408 ; 86 S.C. 408 . Condemnation proceedings: Const. of S.C. and Sec. 2907, Vol. 3, Code 1922.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

For tlie reasons assigned by his Honor, Judge Shipp, it is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Marion concurs in result. Mr. Justice Fraser disqualified, did not participate.

Concurring Opinion

Mr. Justice Cothran

(concurring in result) : I concur in the result upon the ground that the verification of the complaint is insufficient, and that the application is not supported by affidavits.

I do not agree to the statement: “Even if the Acts were unconstitutional, the acts of a de facto officer cannot be attacked, except by some one holding the lawful title of the office.”

This is, generally speaking, true, but the principle does not apply where there is no office legally created; the rule being that where there is no office, there can neither be an officer de jure nor de facto. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S., 425; 6 S. Ct., 1121; 30 L. Ed., 178. Carleton v. People, 10 Mich., 259. Lang v. Bayonne, 74 N. J. Law, 455; 68 A., 90; 15 L. R. A. (N. S.), 93; 122 Am. St. Rep., 391; 12 Ann. Cas,. 961.

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