The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-03-31

"'te""y announced mat !ney would
refuse to obey the court ORDER. Time
was then given complainant s counsel
to consider the matter more fully.
Judge Pritchard's Opinion.
Following is Judge Pritchard's
opinion:
"This is a motion to vacatc injunc-
ton and reccivcrship orders on the
ground that they are predicated upon
an Interpretation of the act Of 1907
rs amended by the legislature Of
1908, in conflict with the intcrprcta-
ton thereof by the supreme court Of
South Carolina, in the ease Of the
State of South Carolina cx rel. j.
Fraser Lyon, as attorney general,
petitioner, vs.. w. j. Murray ct al,
decided March ID, 1908.
CAS- Il general rule this court will
adopt the construction which the
State court puts upon Il State statute.
This l. especially true as affecting the
court decision in respect 10 a rule
Of property. The questions involved
N this motion were determined by
this court in an opinion rendered on
the 10Th day Of February, 1908, in
which. among other things. it was
held that the aci authorizing the APP
puInlmcml "r The defendants us com
m;>>i"Mrr> 10 settle and adjust the
outstanding" indebtedness incurred by
the State diSpcnSarN created the fund
in their hands Il trust fund for the
benefit of The complainantS. and that
the acceptance Of tn. same by the
defendants constituted them trustees
lnldin" such fund for the purpose
contemplated by the statute.
'Tht court having considered the
opinion OF the supreme court OF
South t'ar"liMH. which holds that this
: y -lij a%yainSt the State and thor
fore inhibited Ivy The eleventh amend
""u ! of opinion that tails court is
u"l b"Uud by the principles %rnunciat-
I'll therein. inaSmuch aS ii was RENDER
ed Subsequent to the decision Of this
court and necessarily invoices Il con-
>irurtinn nr lhc constitution Of the
: |Ail"l Slairs.'
The judge here quotes from the
. ease III Burgess vs.. Scliyman, l07 u.
=. page 81.
"In the present ease. rs already OBJ
>.INrd. when the transactions in Qu1s-
ton took place, and when tao decision
of the circuit court was rendered, not
only was there no settled construc-
ton Of the statute in the point I'M
! der consideration. but the Missouri
eases referred to arose upon the idcn-
! teal transactions. which The circuit
court was called upon and is now call
rl "n. L" c"nSidcr. II can hardly be
r"ntrMdr,l lhat the federal court was
TO await for the State courts TO de-
eide the merits Of tic controversy
anal them simply register their decis.
ION: ny that the Judgment Of the cir
cult court should be reversed merely
hr"ausr the State court has since
adopted Il different vicw.'
.]u,l"r Pritchard then quoted in the
case Of PcaSc vs.. Peek. Is How. SO,
and continued:
''This court entertainS the highest
regard for the supreme court Of
South Carolina aud the greatest re-
! srrct for its decisions. but inasmuch
rs its decision in this case was render
ed after the rights Of the complaint
an:S had accrued under the act, and
subsequent To a determination by this
J r"urt Of the questions involved in Il
>ni! hruuGul by the rnmplainants, the
court does not feel justified in adopt
IN" the opinion Of that court as con-
trolling in this particular case.
'lf the court had any doubt rs to
the r"rrrcinrsS Of It's railing il woull
gladly yield t" the decision Of the
Stat" court. but having no such doubt,
the motion Of defendants is overrul-
rd.'
At the time The court announced lis
opinion in this ease, among other
things. the court stated that if appli-
| cation should be made for the pay
meat Of the $4,000 appropriated by
the legislature Of the State of South
Carolina for the prosecution Of par
ties charged with the violation Of tn,
laws in connection with the a
mrnt Of the State dispcnsary, ii