The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1896-10-30
4 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE POPE HAS
NO JURISDICTION
To Issue An Interlocutory Writ or
Order OF Injunction at Chambers.

Inc 1OlOW1ng ID ceruneu copy Oh
an order just made by Associate jus
hoe Pope at Abbeville. As it is the
first authoritative constitution of those
provisions of the Constitution of 1896
which empower Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court to interlocutory
writes or orders of injunction at
chambers, it may be OF interest to the
public, and especially to members OF
che bar. The plaintiffs were repre-
sented by Frank B. Gary and Samuel
@. Cason and the defendants by Gray.
don & Graydon:
The State of South Carolina-County
of Abbeville-Ip the Court of Com.
mon Pleas-A. j. Salinas & Sons,
plaintiffs, against G. Aultman & Go.
and J. O. Klugh as Master. defen-
dants.-Complsint for relief.
A motion was made before me AS an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of this State by tho above named plain
tiffs in the above named action in the
Court of Common Pleas for the County
of Abbeviile, in this State, for an or
der of injunction to restrain the de-
PENDANTS from selling the house and
lot described in the complaint until
the above named cause could be heard
on it's merits. The application in the
the first instance-to-wit, on the Oath
day of September, 1s96-was OK parte.
On that day granted an order for q
rule to she ,ause before me by the
defendants, on the 14th Of October,
1896, why such preliminary Injunction
should not issue. When the rule to
show cause was issued it was :, believed
that the presiding Judge Of the Eighth
Circuit was absent from this circuit, aud
also that Judge Witherspoon, who was
appointed under the law to hold the
courts for the Eighth Circuit, was also
absent from this Circuit. The latter
proved to 90 q mistake, although
plaintiffs justly believed that he was 80
absent.
The defendants, at the hearing be-
fore me, made two grounds for the re-
fusal of the order of the preliminary
injunction-one jurisdictional and the
other on the merits. The latter can
not consider, because I ought not to
consider. If T am without Jurisdiction.
I have no right. to consider any other
question in the case.
My jurisdiction to hear this motion
is now based upon the provisions OF
the new Constitution-li mean the
Constitution adopted in the year 1895.
This is the first instance in which this
serious and delicate question is square
ly presented for decision, and it has
been given serious consideration. Az
ter careful review Of the provisions
of the new Constitution, I am satisfied
I have no Jurisdiction in the premises.
Briefly, these are the lcontrolling
thoughts that lead rue to this conclu
sion:
Section l of Article Nv of the Con-
stitntion of 1895 provides: "The judi.
cial power OF this State shall be vested
in the Supreme Court, in two Circuit
Courts, to-wit: A Court of Common
Pleas, having civil jurisdiction, and q
Court of General Sessions, with crimi.
nal jurisdiction only. The General
Assembly may also establish County
Courts, municipal courts. e."
Thus it is plainly manifest that the
Constitution has divided the judicial
power Of the State among certain tri.
bunals by name. Sections 2, 8 and 4
declare that tho Supreme Court shall
be, fixing the number Of the Justices
thereof, and carefully stating, in Section
4. the jurisdiction Of tho Supreme
Court, in these words: "The Supreme
Court shall have power to issue writA
or orders of Injunction, madamus, quo
warranto, prohibition, certiorari, hs-
beas corpus and other original and
remedial writs. And said court shall
have appellate jurisdiction only in
cases of chancery, and in such appeals
they shall review the findings Of fsot ss
well as the law, except In chsnsery
cases where the facts are settled by
jury and the verdict not set aside, and
shall constitute q court for the correc-
ton of errors at law under such re8u-
lations as the General Assembly may
by law prescribe"
BY this Section Of the Supreme
Court is granted jurisdiction, first, in
certain instances of original jurisdic-
ton; second, in appeals in chsncery,
aud. third. in correcting errors at law.
We must remember always that the
Supreme Court consists, by the terms
of the Constitution, of four members,
and its decision must bo made by ma
jority of it's members in cases within
its original or appellate jurisdiction,
unless in those instances where the
Court is equally divided. or some Con.
stitutional question is presented as SET
ont in the 18th Section OF Article v.
Were We left to the SO provisions of the
Constitution, it would be clear that no
individual Justice OF the Supreme
Court could make any order in matters
before the Conrt; eitherin it's original
or annellate iurisdiction and also auoh