Hunter v. Moore
| Decision Date | 29 June 1893 |
| Parties | HUNTER. v. MOORE, Intendant, et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Writ of Prohibition—To Town Council— Injunction.
1. The supreme court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition to a town council, commanding it not to issue bonds, the writ being issuable, under Const, art. 4, § 4, to courts only.
2. The supreme court, on a petition for a writ of prohibition against the issuance of bonds by a town council, will not, upon the suggestion of counsel for petitioner, made upon the court, intimating that it has no jurisdiction, treat the petition as one for injunction.
Petition by John J. Hunter for a writ of prohibition commanding Walter B. Monro, intendant, and F. A. Gilbert and others, wardens, as town council of Yorkville, not to issue certain bonds. Writ denied.
C. E. Spencer, Hart & Hart, T. F. Mc-Dow, and Mr. Hutson, for petitioner.
Wm. B. McCaw and D. E. Finley, for respondents.
This is a petition, addressed to this court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, praying that this court will issue its writ of prohibition, restraining and prohibiting the town council of Yorkville from issuing its bonds, upon certain grounds set forth in the petition.
In the outset we are confronted with a question of jurisdiction, and, under the view which we take of that question, it becomes not only unnecessary, but improper, for us to consider or determine any question involving the merits. If this court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, has no authority to issue a writ of prohibition in a case like this, then, clearly, it would be a usurpation of power on the part of this court to undertake to do so; and this the court, one of whose functions it is to keep all subordinate tribunals within the limits of the jurisdiction assigned to them by the constitution and laws, would be very far from willing to undertake. This question of jurisdiction has been twice maturely considered in the comparatively recent case of State v. City Council of Columbia, 16 S. C. 412, and again in the same case, reported in 17 S. C. 80, where a rehearing was allowed solely for the purposes of enabling counsel to dis cuss the question of jurisdiction, which had not been raised or argued at. the original hearing. It was there conclusively determined that the supreme court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, has no authority to issue a writ of prohibition, unless it is directed to one of the courts of the state, for the purpose of enabling the supreme court to exercise a supervisory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Jones
... ... C. 46; State v ... Fickling, 10 S.C. 301; State v. Stackhouse, 14 ... S.C. 417; Richland County Columbia, 17 S.C. 83; Hunter v ... Moore, 39 S.C. 394, 17 S.E. 797; State v ... Kirkland, 41 S.C. 29, 19 S.E. 215; State v ... Raborn, 60 S.C. 78, 38 S.E. 260; Riley ... ...
-
Jones v. Jones
...1 S. C. 46; State v. Fickling, 10 S. C. 301; State v. Stackhouse, 14 S. C. 417; Richland County v. Columbia, 17 S. C. 83; Hunter v. Moore, 39 S. C. 394, 17 S. E. 797; State v. Kirkland, 41 S. C. 29, 19 S. E. 215; State v. Raborn, 60 S. C. 78, 38 S. E. 260; Riley v. Greenwood, 72 S. C. 90, 5......
-
Atchison v. State Corp.. Comm'n
...See, also, State ex rel. Richland County v. City of Columbia, 16 S.C. 412, opinion on rehearing, 17 S.C. 80; and Hunter v. Moore, 39 S.C. 394, 17 S.E. 797, cases cited and relied upon in State v. True, supra. In Hunter v. Moore, the supreme court of South Carolina approved the decision in S......
-
State v. True
...and upon evidence to be adduced under well-defined and established rules, according to settled principles of law." And in Hunter v. Moore, 39 S.C. 394, 17 S.E. 797, the decision in State v. Columbia, supra, the court said: "It was there conclusively determined that the Supreme Court, in the......