Robertson v. Peeples

• Citation: 115 S.E. 300,120 S.C. 176
• Decision Date: 04 January 1919
• Docket Number: 10105.
• Parties: ROBERTSON ET AL. v. PEEPLES, ATTY. GEN., ET AL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

115 S.E. 300

120 S.C. 176

ROBERTSON ET AL. v. PEEPLES, ATTY. GEN., ET AL.

No. 10105.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 4, 1919

Action by E. W. Robertson and others against Thomas H. Peeples Attorney General, and others, for an injunction. Injunction refused and complaint dismissed.

William Elliott and J. B. Lyles, both of Columbia, for plaintiffs.

Thomas H. Peeples, Atty. Gen., B. L. Abney and J. Fraser Lyon, both of Columbia, for defendants.

FRASER J.

This is an action for injunction in the original jurisdiction of this court. The necessity for a prompt decision is so apparent that this court has decided to take jurisdiction.

The following is the complaint:

"The plaintiffs, complaining of the defendants, allege:

(1) That plaintiff Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina and the owner of the property known as the Columbia Canal, in and near the city of Columbia. And the plaintiff E. W. Robertson is a citizen and resident of Richland county and president and treasurer of said corporation. And the plaintiff C. M. Tew is a citizen and resident of Richland county and auditor of said corporation.

(2) That the defendants are the officers of the state of South Carolina, designated under an act of the General Assembly of South Carolina approved March 12, 1917, entitled 'An act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances, and the interest of the state in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an act entitled "An act to incorporate the board of trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same," approved December 24, 1887, and acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the state by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,' and also under a second act, approved March 28 1918, entitled 'An act to provide for an investigation of the management, disposition and control of the Columbia Canal, its income and the connection of its arrangements, the conveyance of said property may have had, or now have with other power and light producing properties, or the officer or agents thereof,' both of said acts being incorporated herein by reference.

(3) That on December 11, 1917, the defendants commenced an action against this corporation plaintiff, in the name of the state, seeking to recover judgment of possession of said Columbia Canal and for such income or rentals as may have been received by such corporation therefrom since August 20 1917, and such action is now on appeal to the Supreme Court of South Carolina from orders refusing defendant's petition for removal and overruling defendant's demurrer; and the record in said action is hereby incorporated into this complaint by reference.

(4) That on the 2d day of December, 1918, a so-called summons was served upon each of the plaintiffs E. W. Robertson and C. M. Tew, together with a list of documents, deeds, and papers, of which a copy is annexed and made a part hereof, marked 'Exhibit A,' and plaintiffs allege that the documents, deeds, and papers referred to in said list, in so far as they exist and are within the possession or control of plaintiffs, are the property of the corporation plaintiffs.

(5) That said act approved March 28, 1918, and the actions of defendants thereunder, including the service of the summons above stated, are null and void and in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and sections 5, 14, and 16 of article 1, and section 34 (subdivision 9) of article 3, of the Constitution of South Carolina.

(6) That plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect them in their liberty and property against this illegal and outrageous proceeding, which plaintiffs

...