State Ex Rel. Aker v. Major

Decision Date15 May 1913
PartiesSTATE ex rel. AKER. v. MAJOR.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Counties (§ 63*)—Officers—Appointment.

The clerk of the board of county commissioners of a county, composed of a supervisor and two commissioners, holding for two years, who is appointed over the protest of the supervisor by the commissioners appointed and qualifying in March, is entitled to the office as against an appointee by the supervisor and the retiring commissioners.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Counties, Cent. Dig. §§ 87-90; Dec. Dig. § 63.*]

Quo warranto by the State, on the relation of J. S. Aker, against John J. Major, to determine conflicting claims to office. Judgment for relator.

K. P. Smith, of Anderson, for relator.

PER CURIAM. This is an action, in the nature of quo warranto, to determine the conflicting claims of the plaintiff and defendant to the office of clerk of the board of county commissioners for Anderson county. That board is composed of the county supervisor, who is elected by the people, and two commissioners, who are appointed by the Governor, upon the recommendation of the members of the General Assembly for that county. The term of office of the supervisor and commissioners is two years, and until their successors are elected or appointed and qualified. By statute the supervisor is made chairman of the board. Civil Code 1912, §§ 935, 938, 940.

The present supervisor, being in office, was re-elected, at the last general election, to succeed himself, and was commissioned for his new term in the early part of January. The present commissioners were not appointed and commissioned until the early part of March. Before that time, to wit, in January, the supervisor and outgoing commissioners undertook to appoint defendant clerk of the board for two years from that date. At a meeting of the board held on March 4th, after the present commissioners were appointed and qualified, the plaintiff was appointed clerk of the board by them, over the objection of the supervisor, who contended that the defendant's appointment was good for two years. The principles announced by this court in the case of Sanders v. Belue, 78 S. C. 171, 58 S. E. 762, are conclusive of every question involved in this case, and applied to the facte of this case, they show clearly that the plaintiff is entitled to the office.

It is therefore adjudged that the defendant has no right to the office in question, and that he be excluded therefrom, and that he deliver...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Walker v. Grice
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1931
    ... ...          In ... State v. Rhame, 92 S.C. 455, 75 S.E. 881, 882, Ann ... Cas. 1914B, 519, the ...          In ... State ex rel. Acker v. Major, 94 S.C. 472, 78 S.E ... 896, the Belue Case was again ... ...
  • Newman v. McCullough
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1948
    ... ... terms of office fixed by law; and Section 106 of the 1943 ... State Appropriation Bill, Act April 16, 1943, 43 Stat. at ... Large, p. 327, ... preceding case was followed in State ex rel. Acker v ... Major, 94 S.C. 472, 78 S.E. 896, where the outgoing ... ...
  • Newman v. Mccullough, 16036.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1948
  • Walker v. Grice, 13232.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1931
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT