Lamar v. Croft
Decision Date | 06 March 1906 |
Citation | 53 S.E. 540,73 S.C. 407 |
Parties | LAMAR et al. v. CROFT et al., County Com'rs. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County; Aldrich Judge.
Action by B. D. Lamar and others against T. G. Croft and others county commissioners. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendants H. M. Cassels and Luther W. Reese appeal. Reversed.
George T. Jackson, for appellants. Hendersons, Davis, Gunter & Gyles, Sawyer & Owens, T. R. Morgan, Rice & Johnson, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of injunction. The complaint alleges that during the year 1903, the Governor upon petition filed in his office, ordered an election to be held in portions of the counties of Aiken, Edgefield, and Barnwell for the formation of a proposed new county, which was denominated to be the county of Hammond. That said election was held on the 15th of December, 1903, and resulted in the defeat of the proposed new county. That in 1905, and within four years from the date of said election, the same promoters of the proposed county of Hammond, filed in the office of the Governor, a petition for the formation of a new county from portions of Aiken and Edgefield counties, with the proposed name of Heyward. That the territory in the proposed counties of Hammond and Heyward is substantially and practically the same. That the Governor has appointed the defendants as commissioners who are about to engage upon the discharge of their duties in making contracts with surveyors, which will result in the unlawful expenditure of the funds of the counties. His honor, the circuit judge, issued a rule against the defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be granted. The defendants made return to the rule to show cause, based upon the pleadings and affidavits.
The defendants Cassels and Reese interposed a demurrer to the complaint on grounds that will be hereinafter stated. The circuit judge overruled the demurrer, and in his order thus states his reasons for granting the temporary injunction ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. McCown
... ... The statute is ... merely directory, and the action of the Governor in this ... respect is not subject to review by the courts. Lamar v ... Croft, 73 S.C. 407, 53 S.E. 540; Fraser v ... James, 65 S.C. 78, 43 S.E. 292; State v. Board of ... Registration, 87 S.C. 474, 70 ... ...
- Rentz v. Crosby
-
Parler v. Fogle
... ... county were laid down in the petition with sufficient ... definiteness was for the governor to determine. Lamar v ... Croft, 73 S.C. 407, 53 S.E. 540; Reese v. Ansel, ... Governor, 58 S.E. 933. So also it was within the ... discretion of the Governor to ... ...
-
State v. Blease
... ... careful consideration of the petition herein, we are ... satisfied that a prima facie case is not made out under the ... authority of Lamar ... satisfied that a prima facie case is not made out under the ... authority of Lamar v. Croft ... ...