Ex parte Carson
| Decision Date | 27 February 1874 |
| Citation | 5 S.C. 117 |
| Parties | Ex Parte CARSON. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
The Supreme Court has no power, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under the Constitution, to issue a writ of certiorari to a Board of Commissioners of Election to remove into that Court the record of a contested election case.
This was a petition by Carson and others, citizens of Charleston, to the Supreme Court, for a writ of certiorari to the Board of Commissioners of Election of the city of Charleston, to remove into that Court the plaint and record, together with the testimony taken by them, in a certain case in which an election for Mayor and Aldermen of the city of Charleston had been contested.
Miles, Barnwell, Hayne, Porter, for petitioners.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The proposition of the counsel on behalf of the petitioners, that the writ of certiorari is the remedy by which, in the absence of other provision, the errors of law committed by inferior tribunals are to be corrected may be conceded. As a common law remedy, any Court having the powers of the King's Bench may issue it.
The application in the case before us is to the original jurisdiction of this Court, and the first enquiry which it necessarily must make is as to the power which it is asked to exercise. All the powers of the Supreme Court are primarily derived from the Constitution. These may be supplied or extended by the Legislature, so far as they do not effect the authority conferred by that instrument upon it, both as a Court of appellate and original jurisdiction. If within the rules which should govern a Court in the construction of the Constitution, where its own jurisdiction is involved, and by its own determination is to be either limited or enlarged, it should be seen that the proposed power is not clearly granted, it would be inconsistent with all the precedents which we find to assume it. This conclusion is so conformable to all just reason and sense of right, that it is not necessary to refer to the many authorities which might be cited to sustain it.
It will not be contended that, as a Court of “appellate jurisdiction in chancery and for the correction of errors at law,” the right to issue the writ in question attaches as an incident properly pertaining to it. The mode of bringing cases before it, implied by the language which expresses its jurisdiction, is by appeal as to matters in equity, and writ of error as to questions at law. We must enquire, then, whether it is included in so much of the Constitution as confers original jurisdiction. The words in that connection are: “The said Court shall always have power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and such other original and remedial writs as may be necessary to give it a general supervisory control over all other Courts in the State.” Are the “other Courts” over which this “supervisory control” is to be exercised, to be confined to those which by the Constitution were to constitute “the judicial powers of this State,” or are they to include tribunals which, with the administrative or executive duties imposed upon them, may nevertheless be required incidentally to exercise powers of a judicial character? This latter class, we are of opinion, are not comprehended in the clause of the Constitution from which this Court derives its jurisdiction.
The Section referred to invests the Court, in the exercise of original powers, with authority to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus. These are expressly named. They are not confined in any way to the subject-matter upon which they may act, either in regard to any particular persons or bodies who are to be affected by their enforcement. The grant of power in relation to them is without restriction, and whatever result may be accomplished through their action, by any Court having the undoubted right to issue them, may be attained...
To continue reading
Request your trial