State Ex Rel. Parrott v. Evans

• Decision Date: 28 January 1891
• Parties: State ex rel. Parrott v. Evans.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 816

33 S.C. 612

State ex rel. Parrott

v.Evans.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 28, 1891.

Quo Warranto—Procedure.

In South Carolina, proceedings in the nature of quo warranto must be in the form of an action commenced by a complaint, and a rule against defendant to show cause will not be issued on relator's motion.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Darlington county.

\ The above-named relator, complaining against the above-named defendant, alleges—First, for a first cause of action: That on the 4th day of November, 1890, at a general election duly held in the county of Darlington, in the state aforesaid, pursuant to law, for theelection, among other officers, of school commissioner for said county for the term of two year3, the said relator, Alonzo W. Parrott, received a majority of all the legal votes for the said

office; that on the ——day of December,

1890, the defendant usurped the said office, and has ever since withheld the same from the said Alonzo W. Parrott. Second. For a second cause of action: (1) That on the 4th day of November, 1890, at a general election duly held in the county of Darlington, in the state aforesaid, pursuant to law, for the election, among other officers of school commissioner for said county for the term of two years, the said relator, Alonzo W. Parrott, received a majority of all the legal votes for the said office. (2) That the county canvassers counted votes for defendant which had bepn legally excluded by the managers of the Lamar precinct, in said county, because the same had been written with a lead-pencil, and were otherwise illegal. (3) That the tickets which were voted for the defendant were not of the size required by law. (4) That the tickets printed for relator, and placed atthe polls to be voted for him, were mutilated and scratched, and defendant's name inserted in place of relator's by the agents of the said defendant, and these were illegally counted for defendant. (5) That a large number of voters were prevented from voting for relator, because, after diligent search and inquiry, tickets not mutilated and scratched as aforesaid could not be found. (6) That the managers of the Darlington precinct failed to count all the legal ballots cast for relator at that precinct. (7) That the managers of the Leavansworth precinct, in said county, failed to count all the legal ballots cast for relator at that precinct. (8) That by means of the irregularities and illegal proceedings alleged in this...