Pickman v. Georgetown County

• Decision Date: 11 November 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 11601.)
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PICKMAN. v. GEORGETOWN COUNTY et al.

125 S.E. 191

PICKMAN.

v.GEORGETOWN COUNTY et al.

(No. 11601.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 11, 1924.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Georgetown County; S. W. G. Shipp, Circuit Judge.

Action by Dudley L. Pickman against Georgetown County and others. From an order denying a permanent injunction and dissolving temporary restraining order, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The order of Judge Shipp, referred to in the opinion, follows:

"Upon hearing the return to the rule to show cause, heretofore issued by me herein, why an injunction should not issue enjoining the defendants from condemning the lands of the plaintiff, described in the complaint, it is ordered that the rule be and the same is discharged, and the temporary restraining order issued herein be and the same is set aside and dissolved. Press of work forbids me from giving at length my reasons for this order. I am satisfied that none of the constitutional grounds of attack against the acts of the Legislature mentioned in the complaint can be sustained. Even if the acts were unconstitutional, the acts of a de facto officer cannot be attacked, except by some one having the lawful title of the office; furthermore, the complaint in this ease shows that many of the material allegations are made on information and belief, and the sources of the information are not given. The complaint purports to be verified, not by the plaintiff, but by Esther R. L. Carraway, an alleged agent of the plaintiff; no reason being given why the affidavit is not made by plaintiff, and no sources of her alleged information or grounds of her knowledge and belief being given. It is not verified as required by section 418, chapter 5, § 2 of volume 1 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1922. The complaint stands as an unverified complaint, and an injunction can only issue upon affidavit or a verified complaint. It ought not to issue upon allegations made on in-formation and belief, without the sources of such information and the grounds of belief being given. It does not appear that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. It is true he does allege irreparable loss, but that is a mere conclusion, and no facts are stated to justify the conclusion. The road is a different thing from the ferry, and, should defendants attempt to contract with any one as to the ferry without executing bond, then will be time to apply for an injunction."

Capers G. Barr, of Georgetown, for appellant.

Mayjam W. Pyatt, of Georgetown, for...