Case ID: scl_14/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JohNson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John W. Clark ads. Turner Bynum.
    tinner theacts of!812, ami 1817, magistrates and freeholders have nojurisdie-(ion to pul out a (enant. who holds over under a parol lease.
    
    By the act of 1817, power is only given to them, in those cases where the tenant shall make alterations or remove buildings on the premise:', without the written consent oí the landlord.
    “The preamble to an act may be used to explain an equivocal expression used in the enacting clause, but never to control its obvious meaning, nor to supply matter not embraced in its spirit and meaning.
    This was a complaint, before a court of magistrates and freeholders, by the plaintiff against the defendant, that he field over the possession of a certain lot of land in Columbia, notwithstanding the determination of his lease, contrary to the acts of Assembly of 1812 and 1817 in that case made and provided. The jury gave a verdict for the Plaintiff and thereupon the magistrates made an order for restitution to the plaintiff. Upon this, defendant filed a suggestion for a prohibition before his honor Judge Gantt, at chambers, who refused the prohibition.
    The defendant appealed on the ground:
    That bis honor Judge Gantt erred in refusing the prohibition; as magistrates and freeholders have no jurisdiction under the acts of 1812 and 1817 under parol leases, where the complaint is for bolding over.
   JohNson, J.

The lease under which the defendant held the premises was unwritten, and it i not pretended that the court of magistrates and freeholders are authorized by the act of 1812 (page 39) to restore the possession to the landlord in such a case. Their jurisdiction is limited by this act, in terms, to cases where the tenant holds under a written lease.

But it is contended their power is derived from the act of 1807. (page 35.)

It it true that the laws before passed were . deficient “ in providing a prompt mode of placing landlords in posses- ■ sion after the legal termination of leases or agreements pa-rol or written, entered into between landlords and tenants; but in the enacting clauses the only power delegated to the court, and is found in the last clause is confined to those cases where the tenants shall make alterations or remove buildings erected on the premises, without the written consent of the landlord, and does not embrace the present case.

The preamble to an act may be used to explain an equivocal expression used in the enacting clause, but never to control its obvious meaning, nor to supply matter not embraced in its spirit and meaning. But in any view of this act, there can be no doubt as to this case. The preamble and enacting clause are in perfect unison. The former points out the and the latter provides a remedy for a particular case.

Gregg and Brickell, for the motion,

The case of M‘Donald and Bonner vs. Elfe (1 Nott and M‘Cord 501,) is directly in point,* and although the construction ofthe act of 1817 was not necessary to that case, it appears to have been well considered and the reasoning is very satisfactory.

Motion granted.

- — • contra-.