Case Name: Ex Parte Lumsden, Ex Parte Cormack, and Ex Parte Mills
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1894-06-06
Citations: 41 S.C. 553
Docket Number: No. 3390
Parties: Ex Parte Lumsden, Ex Parte Cormack, and Ex Parte Mills.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
No. 3390.
Ex Parte Lumsden, Ex Parte Cormack, and Ex Parte Mills.
These were three separate applications to the Supreme Court for injunctions to restrain the supervisor of registration for Richland County from turning over his books and lists to the managers of election. The petitions quoted at large from the registration law of this State, passed first in 1882, and afterwards amended, particularly those portions which provided, as alleged, that no one should register except prior to the general election next succeeding the time at which they were authorized to register; and that petitioners could not now register because Lumsden was so entitled in 1882, but was prevented by absence on business; Cormack. became so entitled in 1890 by removal into the State, but failed, through ignorance of the law; and Mills became so entitled in 1890 by then arriving at the. age of twenty-one, but failed because of the crowd at the proper office when he presented himself. None of them alleged any refusal of a demand by them for permission to register at any subsequent time.
The court refused to issue a rule requiring the supervisor of registration to show cause why an injunction should not issue, by the following order of June 6, 1894,
Obear & Douglass, for petitioners. The attorney general, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Although rules to show cause are usually granted as a matter of course, on application, in cases like this, yet, as the court always requires, it is assumed that a prima facie showing has been made in the petition, which entitles the moving party, on his eon parte showing, to this preliminary order. We have looked carefully into the allegations of the petitioner. Even admitting everything alleged by him, we cannot see that such a prima facie case has been made out as to entitle him to a rule. The relief asked for by him is not the appropriate remedy for the grievance set out. The motion for a rule to show cause is refused.
The court stated that this application was allowed yesterday (Tuesday), instead of at the regular time for cases in the original jurisdiction, as a mere matter of indulgence, and is not to be taken as a precedent.