Hutchison v. York County

• Citation: 86 S.C. 396,68 S.E. 576
• Parties: HUTCHISON v. YORK COUNTY et al.
• Decision Date: 20 July 1910
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

68 S.E. 576
86 S.C. 396

HUTCHISON
v.
YORK COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 20, 1910.

1. Injunction (§ 144^*)—Temporary Injunction.

While on the application for a temporary injunction, the case is not tried upon its merits, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to make out a prima facie showing that a temporary injunction is reasonably essential to protect his rights, and a temporary injunction does not follow automatically when a complaint states a cause of action.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 316; Dec. Dig. § 144.*]

2. Appeal and Error (§ 840*)—Review of Constitutional Questions — Temporary Injunction—Hearing.

In proceedings to obtain a temporary injunction where plaintiff's prima facie case depends upon allegations that a statute is unconstitutional, the judge hearing the application must consider that matter in determining the reasonable necessity for a temporary injunction, and the question is one of law with the presumption in favor of the validity of the statute, and in order to reverse the refusal of a temporary injunction in a case where the court has held the law valid, the constitutional question must be reviewed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3305; Dec. Dig. § 840.*]

3. Eminent Domain (| 274*)—Restraining Action op County Authorities—Condemnation of Land for County Road.

Civ. Code 1902, § 1343, and Act Feb. 26, 1902 (23 St. at Large, p. 998), authorize the county board of commissioners to open new publie roads or change the location of old ones, where such change would be for the material interests of the traveling public, and authorize them to condemn the land therefor. A complaint, in an action to restrain the county authorities from condemning land for a public highway through plaintiff's plantation, alleged that there already existed a public highway extending through plaintiff's plantation connecting the same communities that are proposed to be connected by the new highway, "which present highway according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of plaintiff, is as convenient and affords as short a route to the traveling public of the neighborhood as would this proposed new road, " and plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that "according to her best knowledge and belief, it is entirely practicable to make the said established highway into a highly improved and wholly efficient highway, at very slightly, if any, greater expense to the county than will be required for the opening and establishing of said proposed new highway, and she charges that there is no necessity for such new highway." There was no allegation showing abuse of...