Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926

Betenbaugh, Auditor v. S.C. Tax Comm.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided April 5, 1926 · Purdy, Messrs, Watts, Cothran, Blease, Stabler, Gary

132 S.E. 589; 134 S.C. 281; 1926 S.C. LEXIS 36 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. John K. Hamblin , for appellant, cites: Mandamus proper to control discretion of public officers only when discretion abused: 130 S.C. 337 ; 81 S.C. 416 ; 2 McC., 170; 4 Burr, 2186; 100 U.S. 339 ; 25 L.Ed., 676 ; 74 U.S. 364 ; 19 L.Ed., 214 ; 9 Wheat, 529; 6 L.Ed., 152 ; 45 S.E., 994; 139 Mo., 560 ; 61 A.S.R., 474; 76 Cal., 545 ; 9 A.S. R., 249; 13 N.E., 201. Appeals from South Carolina Tax Commission to State Board of Review: Civ. Code, 1922, Sec. 369. Tax Commission limited to powers given by Legislature: 113 S.C. 376 . Tax Commission without right to change its decision of its own motion: 89 S.C. 478 ; 88 S.C. 474 ; 42 L.Ed., 953 ; 38 L.Ed., 269; 15 A. E. Enc. of Law, 2nd Ed., 1046; 1 Wall, 175; 3 Wall, 294; 9 Wall, 50; 16 Wall, 678. Messrs. Elliott McLain , for respondent, Emslie Nicholson, cite: Right of appeal should be construed liberally: 128 S.E., 360 . Messrs. John M. Daniel, Attorney General , and J. Fraser Lyon , for respondent, South Carolina Tax Commission.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy.

The nature of the controversy and a full statement of the facts are set forth in the decree of his Honor, Judge Bonham. The reasoning of his Honor and the conclusions reached by him are satisfactory to this Court in the disposition of the matter at issue. The exceptions to- his decree are, therefore, overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Let the decree of his Honor, Judge Bonham, be reported.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Cothran, BlEase and Stabler concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

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