Goree v. Greenwood County Supervisor

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GARY, C.J.
• Citation: Goree v. Greenwood County Supervisor, 93 S.C. 312, 76 S.E. 705 (S.C. 1912)
• Decision Date: 24 December 1912
• Parties: GOREE v. GREENWOOD COUNTY SUPERVISOR et al.

76 S.E. 705

93 S.C. 312

GOREE v. GREENWOOD COUNTY SUPERVISOR et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 24, 1912

Original application by W. O. Goree for writ of mandamus directed to the county supervisor and the county treasurer of Greenwood county. Writ awarded.

D. H Magill, of Greenwood, for petitioner. Giles & Ouzts, of Greenwood, for respondents.

GARY C.J.

This is an application to the court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for a writ of mandamus.

The facts are thus alleged in the petition: "(1) That on the 19th day of March, 1912, he was duly and legally appointed and commissioned as a magistrate in and for the county of Greenwood, at Coronaca, in said county, the office having been established at that place by an act of the General Assembly at its session of 1912. (2) That the annual salary of your petitioner as such magistrate, as fixed by law, is the sum of $100, and the said act provides that such salary shall be due and payable quarterly upon the order of the county supervisor. (3) That your petitioner has held the said office of magistrate under said appointment and commission and has discharged the duties thereof, as required by law until the present time, and on the 1st day of October, 1912 the said supervisor refused to make the order required by law for the quarterly payment due on that day, and, notwithstanding the petitioner's demand, the said respondent, the county supervisor, refused and still refuses to make said order for said quarterly payment of $25. Wherefore your petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus issue commanding said supervisor to draw his said order as required by law for said quarterly payment, and that the county treasurer be required to pay the same, and that the county supervisor be required to pay the costs of these proceedings."

The return of the respondents is as follows: (1) That they deny each and every allegation in said petition contained, not hereinafter admitted. (2) That on the 23d day of February, 1912, the Legislature of South Carolina did pass an act providing for the appointment of a magistrate at Coronaca at a salary of $100 per annum, the said salary to be paid quarterly as alleged in said petition. (3) That the said act was presented to the Governor for his approval on the 23d day of February, 1912, and was not returned within three days to the house in which it originated; the General Assembly being in session. (4) That on the 29th day of February, 1912, the Senate, then being in session, recommended to the Governor and advised for appointment as magistrate at Coronaca G. Medlin (see Senate Journal, pp. 990, 991), and the Governor failed and refused to make said appointment, but on the 19th day of March, 1912, the Legislature, having adjourned, appointed the petitioner without...