Lytle v. Miller

• Decision Date: 23 July 1930
• Docket Number: 12954.
• Citation: 154 S.E. 225,157 S.C. 332
• Parties: LYTLE v. MILLER, Clerk of Court, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

154 S.E. 225

157 S.C. 332

LYTLE v. MILLER, Clerk of Court, et al.

No. 12954.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 23, 1930

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; T. S Sease, Judge.

Application for mandamus by Lula K. Lytle against Ernest W. Miller, as Clerk of Court for Spartanburg County, and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

The order of Judge T. S. Sease is as follows:

This is an application for an order of mandamus to require the treasurer of Spartanburg county to refund to the plaintiff the sum of $100 furnished by her supposedly to pay a fine of one Eck Knuckles, convicted of violating the prohibition law in this county.

The facts of this matter are as follows: On November 5, 1929, the case of one Eck Knuckles was called for trial in the court of general sessions for Spartanburg county. Upon the call of the case, Mr. Jennings, his attorney, stated that the said Knuckles was not present, and consented for him to be tried in his absence, if the solicitor would recommend a fine of $100 or 60 days on the chain gang, which the solicitor agreed to do. The said Eck Knuckles was tried on this day and convicted, and a sealed sentence was filed with the clerk of court. That on the 16th day of November, 1929, the plaintiff paid to Mr. Jennings the sum of $100, who paid the same to the clerk of court, who turned the same over to the county treasurer as required by law. In the meantime a bench warrant was issued for the apprehension of the said Knuckles in order that the sealed sentence might be opened and imposed upon him. Before the said Knuckles could be apprehended under the said bench warrant and the sentence opened and read to him, he was killed by a city policeman of the city of Spartanburg.

The plaintiff brought this proceeding for a mandamus to compel the refund of this money to her, claiming that, as the sealed sentence had never been opened and read to the defendant there was no judgment of the court in this case, and that the clerk had no right to receive this money and the treasurer had no right to retain it.

In this position I hold that the plaintiff is correct. Under the authority of Ex parte Tolson, reported in 5 Strob. 88, it is held that a sealed sentence is not the judgment of the court until it is opened and read to the defendant. As there was no judgment imposing the fine in this case, the money could not have...