Case ID: scl_7/html/0762-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia,
    
      April Term, 1816.
    Thomas P. Martin, Assignee and Attorney of C Martin, vs. George Y. McMurphy.
    Jeter, for the Motion.
    
    Stark, Contra.
    
    Turf the 18 ;2, ma-have^no jin'isdic- ■ lion between landlord and tenant'
    -^u^e to shew cause why a prohibition to stay the proceedings of certain magistrates acting under the act of 1812, for the relief of landlords should not be oTanted.
    . , In this case there was no written lease, and the court ordered the prohibition. A motion is now made to set aside the prohibition, on the following grounds:
    1st, That the record in the case being final and conclusive under the. act, the court ought to have presumed that the requisites of the act were complied with by the justices and freeholders.
    
      2ndly, That if it "vvas necessary that a written lease should be entered on the record of the proceedings, then the court ought not to have overruled the motion for time to make a further return.
    3rdly, That no written lease is necessary under the act, but the same contemplates parol, as well as . written leases.
   Nott, J.

The only ground for the prohibition in this case, was the want of a written lease. The magistrates in answer to the rule to show cause, merely certified their proceedings, and require the court to determine the question upon a view of these proceedings. They do not shew that there was any written lease, nor was it even pretended. Indeed the return was a tacit acknowledgment that the allegation in the suggestion was true. The prohibition, therefore, was properly granted; for magistrates have no such jurisdiction, except where there is a written lease. The motion must, therefore, be rejected.

Justices Grimke, Smith, Bay and Colcock concurred.