Moses v. Sumter County

• Citation: 33 S.E. 581,55 S.C. 502
• Parties: MOSES v. SUMTER COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 17 July 1899
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

33 S.E. 581

55 S.C. 502

MOSES v. SUMTER COUNTY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 17, 1899

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Sumter county; O. W Buchanan, Judge.

Appeal by A. D. Moses from disallowance of claim by county commissioners. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. B Stuckey, for appellant.

J. D Jennings, for respondent.

JONES J.

Plaintiff as coroner, filed, for audit and payment by the board of commissioners for Sumter county, a claim, in due form, for $10, for holding an inquest. The board refused to audit and pay the claim, because, in their judgment, the coroner was not authorized to hold the inquest, under the act approved January 5, 1895 (21 St. at Large, p. 825). On appeal by the coroner the circuit court reversed this action of the board, and gave judgment for the claim, and now the county appeals from that judgment.

The act above cited makes it the duty of the coroner, in every case where a body is found dead, and an investigation or inquest is deemed advisable, "to go to the body and examine the witnesses most likely to be able to explain the cause of death, take their testimony in writing and decide for himself whether there ought to be a trial or whether blame probably attaches to any living persons for the death; and if so, he shall proceed to summon a jury and hold a formal inquest as now required by law; but if there be, in his judgment, no apparent or probable blame against living persons as to the death, he shall issue a burial permit, and all further inquiry or formal inquest shall be dispensed with," etc. The design of this act was to dispense with formal inquest and the attendant fees and expenses, in all cases in which the coroner, after a preliminary investigation by himself without a jury, should decide that no blame probably attaches to any one for the death. It is made the duty of the coroner in all cases to hold the preliminary investigation, and he has no discretion to dispense with it. If a coroner should hold a formal inquest without the preliminary investigation required, his act would be contrary to the statute, and he would not be entitled to his fees for such inquest. Hence, if the record in this case had shown, as an established fact, that no such preliminary investigation was had, we would be bound to hold the circuit court in error in giving judgment for such claim. But no such established fact...