State v. Ansel
| Decision Date | 05 October 1907 |
| Citation | 58 S.E. 933,78 S.C. 331 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. REESE et al. v. ANSEL, Governor. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Original application for mandamus by the state, on the relation of Luther W. Reese and others, against M. F. Ansel, Governor, to require respondent to order an election on the question of the formation of a new county. Denied.
J Fraser Lyon, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus requiring his Excellency, Gov. Ansel, to order an election on the question of formation of a new county. We shall not enter into the inquiry whether this court has the power to issue a mandamus requiring the Governor of the state to perform a plain ministerial duty, because, in our opinion, the petition does not show any duty which the Governor has failed to perform.
In January, 1907, relators filed a petition with his Excellency Gov. Heyward, for the creation of a new county out of portions of Edgefield and Aiken counties. The description of the territory to be included in the proposed new county was on its face general and approximate, and concluded with this statement: "The foregoing description and boundaries are intended to cut off and include not exceeding 135 square miles from Edgefield county, and not exceeding 235 square miles from Aiken county, and to that end at any time before final survey and location may be varied, changed or amended by the commissioners acting in behalf of the proposed new county, appointed pursuant to an act approved the 21st day of February, A. D. 1905, they being hereby constituted and appointed attorneys in fact of petitioners for that purpose; the power given them to amend or change the lines or description being ancillary and not exclusive of petitioners' right to amend this petition at any time." Gov. Heyward, under the act of February 21, 1905 (24 St. at Large, p. 915) appointed commissioners to investigate whether the requirements of the Constitution "as to area, distance, wealth, population, etc.," had been complied with. Subsequently the petitioners petitioned Gov. Ansel, who had succeeded Gov. Heyward, to be allowed to amend the petition by substituting for the general description an exact description of the territory to be included by courses, distances, and boundaries shown on the plat. When this application to amend was made, opponents of the new county scheme filed an answer to the petition, in which they alleged the proposed new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Weeks
...were misled by the plat and the report of the surveyors, and the report of the commissioners. But as was decided in the case of Reese v. Ansel, 78 S.C. 331 , Governor is not bound by the report of the surveyors or the commissioners and, as really this mistake appears from a proper inspectio......
-
Brown v. Ansel
... ... PER ... After ... reading the petition herein, the court is of the opinion that ... rule to show cause should not issue. Even if the Governor is ... subject to our writ of mandamus, a question noticed, but not ... decided, in State v. Ansel, 76 S.C. 406, 57 S.E ... 185, it appears from the petition that the act sought to be ... compelled is not a plain ministerial duty, but involves the ... exercise of discretion, and is therefore not compellable by ... mandamus. See section 580, Civ. Code 1902, and State ex ... rel ... ...