Case ID: sc_96/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Gary.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

8756
    STATE EX REL. WARDLAW v. ALEWINE.
    Offices am Officees. — One elected to the office of superintendent of the county poorhouse and farm by the board of county commissioners in October, 1913, for the term of one year, beginning January I, 1914, is entitled to the office as against the incumbent -whom the supervisor in December, 1913, agreed to let remain for 1914.
    Proceeding in the original jurisdiction of the Court by John L. Wardlaw against J. A. Alewine to determine the title to the office.of superintendent of the county poorhouse of Abbeville county.
    March 18, 1914.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an action to determine the right of the plaintiff, to hold the office of superintendent of the county poorhouse and farm of Abbeville county.

Permission to use the name of the State, was granted the plaintiff, by Honorable Frank B. Gary, Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

The complaint alleges, that the plaintiff was duly elected superintendent of the county poorhouse and farm, by the county board of commissioners, of Abbeville county, on the 7th of October, 1913, for the term of one year beginning the first of January, 1914.

That the plaintiff received a letter from W. A. Stevenson, county supervisor, on the 17th of December, 1913, informing him that he had decided to' let the defendant, J. A. Ale-wine, remain in office during the year 1914.

That on the 23d of December, 1913, the plaintiff notified the supervisor, W. A. Stevenson, and also the defendant, that he expected to- take charge of the county poorhouse and farm as superintendent on the first of January, 1914, and demanded possession of said office, which was refused.

On the 16th of January, 1914, one of the Justices of this Court granted an order that the defendant show to this Court by what warrant or authority he claimed to hold said office.

When the case was called for hearing the defendant failed to appear, and the Court was informed that he had vacated said office.

The plaintiff is unquestionably entitled to said office and it is so adjudged.