Case Name: The State ex relatione T. Y. Neely vs. Henry Wadkins
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1844-12
Citations: 1 Rich. 42
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex relatione T. Y. Neely vs. Henry Wadkins.
Judges: Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 42–47

Head Matter:
The State ex relatione T. Y. Neely vs. Henry Wadkins.
Information in the nature of a quo warranto, will not lie, to oust the Captain of a heat company of his commission, on the ground that his election was invalid, and his commission illegally granted.
Courts of inquiry organized in conformity with the militia laws have exclusive cognizance of such matters.
Before O’Neall, J. at Chambers, Columbia, May, 1844.
This was an information, in the nature of a quo war-ranto, against the respondent, to show cause why he should not be ousted of his command, as Captain of a beat company in the 40th Regiment.
It appeared that in January or February, 1841, the respondent, without any order for election, and upon an irregular resignation of the Captain in command, was elected Captain of the company. He was not commissioned by the Colonel then in command, who was subsequently promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, and after such promotion, instructed his successor, Col. Hudgens, not to commission him. But Col. Hudgens did commission him in November, 1842, previous to which time he had been nearly two years in command.
The judgment of his Honor was as follows.'
The 23d§ of the Act of 1841, p. 182, cannot apply to this case, for the respondent at its passage was in command of his company. The Act of 1816, 8 Stat. 534, is that under which his election might, at one time, have been tested. According to it, the Lieut. Colonel or Major commanding the battalion is to order the election, which might be held after twenty days notice. There is no doubt that the election of the respondent was held without such order or notice: and if a proper application for a court of Inquiry had been made, the election would have been set aside; or if the Colonel, Lieut. Colonel, or Major, had thought proper, either had the power to treat the election as a nullity, and the commission as vacant, and to order a legal election to be had and held. But if the people subject to Captain Wadkins’s command were satisfied with his election, and that té manifested by their submission to his command for near two years before he was commissioned, and then the Colonel thought proper to commission him, (as he did,) I do not perceive any ground upon which I can regard him as illegally in an office. He is both defacto and de jure Captain. For the whole object of an election under orders and with, notice is to obtain the choice of the company, in the selection of their officer. If that be equally as satisfactorily obtained without order and without notice, and those interested waive the legal prerequisites, I think there is no valid legal objection to the commission.
But I regard the commission as concluding this inquiry. It legally supposes that every act necessary to its validity was done. The Colonel, Lieut. Colonel, or Major, unless there was a protest, was the only judge whether a commission ought to be issued or not. When this was done, (the commission, issued,) the person receiving it was rightfully in command of the Company, and can only be deprived of it by being cashiered for some military offence by a Court Martial. If the Colonel acted wrong in commissioning him (which however I do not, by any means, mean to say) he is responsible on charges, in the usual and proper military- course of arrest and trial by a Court Martial.
The Rule is discharged.
The relator appealed, and now moved the court to reverse the decision of His Honor, on the following grounds :
1. Because it is respectfully submitted that His Honor erred in holding that, although Henry Wadkins was elected without any order or notice, that yet he was legally in office, and his commission concluded all inquiry into his right of office.
2. Because the defendant was not Captain, either de facto or de jure.
Sullivan, for the motion.
Irby, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, 'per
O'Neall, J.
In this case the court is satisfied with the decision of the Judge below. It is perhaps however necessary to add to the remarks of the Judge be low, that by the 5th section of the Act of '94, 8th Stat. at Large, 486, it is expressly provided "that in case of any contested election, the validity of the same (in the election of field officers,) shall be referred to the Brigadier General of the Brigade, who shall call to his assistance two field officers of some other regiments of his brigade; and in the election of Captains, Lieutenants and Ensigns, shall be referred to the field officers of the Regiment to .which they belong." From this provision, it appears that the field officers constitute the- court of Inquiry alluded to in the opinion below, having full and final cognizance of the matter, whether a Captain's commission is properly filled or not.
If the relator has any remedy, it is by applying to the Colonel of the Regiment, to enquire whether Captain Wadkins is rightly in commission or not. On such application he may call his Lieut. Colonel and Major to his aid, and if they should think and decide that he was not elected properly, they may yet order an election. But it is very clear this court has nothing to do with the matter.
The motion is dismissed.
Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.