Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1928

Ross v. Pickens County

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 21, 1928 · Chiee, Watts, Cothran, Messrs, Breas, Stabler, Purdy

143 S.E. 366; 146 S.C. 24; 1928 S.C. LEXIS 101 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Carey, Christopher Chapman; Dean, Cothran Wyche , and W.C. Hughs , for appellant, cite: "Federal aid projects": Act of Congress, Ch. 241, 39 Stat. L., 355; 31 S.C. Stat., 1072. Error to sustain demurrer under facts of case: 103 S.E., 787 . Cases distinguished: 24 S.C. 549 .. Messrs. Martin Blythe, Craig Keith , and W.E. Findley , for respondent, cite: Not applicable to case at bar: Sec. 765, Code. Effect of mistrial is to leave the case as if no trial had ever been had: 24 S.C. 86 . Where permission of state given to determine liability of counties ex delicto: Secs. 1061-1112, Code. The state cannot be sued except by its consent: 132 S.C. 231, 252; 129 S.C. 257 , 262 . County is part of state government: 42 S.C. 17 , 20 . Remedy given by statute exclusive: 36 Cyc., 913; 21 S.C. 560 , 570 ; 24 S.C. 543 ; 79 S.C. 316 ; Ar. 14, Sec. 4, Const.; 15 C.J., 646; 40 S.C. 276 ; 81 S.C. 201 ; 81 S.C. 419 ; 84 S.C. 410 ; 85 S.C. 297 ; 87 S.C. 270 ; 90 S.C. 180 . Authority to sue in Court of Common Pleas: Sec. 2948, Code; 114 S.C. 123 ; 109 S.C. 301 ; 113 S.C. 466 ; 132 S.C. 241 . Cases distinguished: 114 S.C. 469 .

Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice Cothran

(dissenting) : I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion of the Circuit Judge sustained by the authorities cited by respondent.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge Mann sustaining a demurrer and dismissing complaint in this case. Judge Mann’s order will be reported.

There were four exceptions. The third was abandoned. The first and second exceptions raise the following questions :

“The first exception raises the question that it was error for his Honor, Judge Mann, to hold that in a case, such as we have here, the County Board of Commissioners of Pickens County had exclusive original jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, and that the Court of Common Pleas did not have original jurisdiction thereof.” “The *28 second exception alleges error in holding that there was no statute authorizing suit against the county in a suit such as this.”

These exceptions are sustained. It was not a matter of which the authorities of Pickens County had exclusive control. The highway commission of the state had some authority in the premises, and federal aid was required; the act of Congress governed in so far as federal aid was concerned.

The Pickens authorities in charge of the matter had canceled the contracts, and the appellant had every reason to think that if he presented his claim to them they would refuse to pay; to present the claim under existing conditions would have been foolish. The order appealed from is reversed under Bank of McCormick v. McCormick County, 114 S. C., 469; 103 S. E., 787. Best v. Barnwell County, 114 S. C., 123; 103 S. E., 479.

The fourth exception is unnecessary to consider. Order appealed from is reversed.

Messrs. Justices Breas# and Stabler, and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Purdy concur.

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