The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1868-08-27
Tho Quo XVarrt,anto.

tempt, alleging o refusal on his part
to comply with the terms of3the
Judgment of custer heretofore rem
dered against him for usurping and
unlawfully exercising the Office of
Coroner of Richland County. The
only question raised on the argument
was whether the appeal which has
been taken from the Judgment ope-
rates is q supersedeas in reference to
the remedial action sought in the
present proceeding.
The remedy afforded under the
laws of this State, in cases in the no
ture of quo aoa,Td,,to, is based upon
the statute of 8 Anne, G. %, made of
force by section II Of the article of
December 12, 1712, settling the mode
Of pleading, and Of disposing of
issues of fact arising, and the form
of Judgment appropriate to the case.
1t authorizes q judgment of custer,
and also the imposition of fine for
the usurpation, rs we'll as costs to
the prevailing party.
The right Of granting the writs of
prohibition, mandamus and quo aoar-
rdnto was conferred upon the Judges
of the Court of General Sessions
and Common Pleas, at their cham
bers, in the same manner and with
the same effect as if done in open
Court; and the right of appeal to
the constitutional Court of Appeals
was secured by Act of 1918, statutes
at large, vol vii, p. 321.
The exact question raised appears
not to have been authoritatively de-
cided in this State; but question
depending on the same general prin-
ciples was presented in Pinckney vs.
Hanegan, e Strob., 251,) where it
was decided that an appeal from q
peremptory mandamus was not o su-
persedeas, but that the writ must be
obeyed, Notwithstanding such appeal.
The Court places its decision on the
authority of the case Of the Dean
and Chapter of Dublin us. Dowgatt,
p, Wills, $40, approving the
grounds of decision afforded by the
report of that case.
The case of the Dean and Chapter
of Dublin us. Dowgatt, arose shortly
after the passage of the Act of 8
Anne, and is an authority bearing on
the present question, so far rs it is
influenced by the terrus of that STA
tute. The question before the court
was, whether the pendency of writ
of error to bring up peremptory
mandamus was supersedeas of the
writ. 1t was held not to be super
sedeas, ''for that such q construction
would quite defeat the end of the
statute and prevent the officer who
was chosen annually from having
any bruit of the mandamus. This
expression must be regarded rs
qualified statement of the more gen
eral doctrine, readily recognized,
that the subjects of controversy orti-
narily involved in cases of manda-
mus are of such nature that delay
in affording q remedy is equivalent
to its denial. Such must also be the
understanding of the general observ-
ations as to the effect of refusing q
supersedeas made by the learned
judge who delivered the opinion of
the court in Pinckney Us. Hanegan.
The basis of decision there laid
down, in reference to the case of
mandamus, is still moro forcible in
its application to cases of quo ua,-
rdnto. The former case concerns
only some one official act to be per-
formed, while tho latter involves the
capacity of performing any official
act whatever. In both cases, the
public have the primary interest
involved, and the respondent but n
secondary. So, in mandamus, the
extent of that interest is limited to
the performance of q single act of
duty, while, in the case of quo aoa,.-
ranto, that interest is commensurate
with the importance of the very
Office itself.
Apart, however, from any considc-
ration of the intimate relationship
existing between the two remedies
under consideration, growing out of
their remedial uses, they are brought
into peculiar relation both by the Act
of 9 Anne and that of 1918. They
are treated in both Acts as part and
parcel of the same system of RENE
dial means. while in the latter Act
they are misled in reference to the
very right of appeal itself. The in
ference is irresistible that the effect
of such appeal must be the same as
to both methods of procedure.
The authority of Pinckney as.
Hanegan must, therefore, be regard
ed as embracing the determination of