Case Name: Alexander B. Stark ads. The Board of Public Works
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1820-05
Citations: 2 Nott & McC. 337
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Alexander B. Stark ads. The Board of Public Works.
Judges: Coloock, Gantt, Johnson, Richardson and Huger, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
* Alexander B. Stark ads. The Board of Public Works.
When one judge has made an order, the operation of which is defeated by subsequent circumstances, a succeeding judge may make such further order as is necessary to carry the first into execution.
Where commissioners have been appointed by a judge, under the Act of 1819, to assess damages done by the Board of Public Works to a citizen, and one or more of the commissioners is unable or refuses to act, a succeeding judge can appoint other commissioners.
Motion to reverse an order made by Mr. Justice Nott, Spring Term, 1820, at Columbia.
The Act of Assembly, of 1818, requires the Court of CommoD Pleas or Equity, upon application to them made, to appoint five appraisers, to value any lands which may be required by the Board of Public Works, for canals, &c., when they and the owners of the soil cannot agree.
At the fall Court of 1819, five persons were appointed, upon the application of the then engineer, to appraise certain lands belonging to Mr. Alexander B. Stark, which were wanting for the purpose of cutting a canal. Since that time, one of the persons so appointed, had become interested in the question, and other causes rendered it necessary that some of the persons so appointed, should be changed the next term. Application was made to the Court for that purpose, and upon hearing the motion, the Court ordered three others to be substituted in the place of three before appointed.
This was amotion to reverse that order, on the ground that a succeeding Judge could not vacate or repeal an order made by his predecessor.
6 Stat. 114, § 13.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Nott, J.
The question, whether one judge can reverse the order or decision of another, does not occur in this case. But the question is whether, when one judge has made an order, the operation of which has been *defeated by any subsequent circumstances, a succeeding judge can r-^qoo make such further order as is necessary to carry the first into effect ? L The Legislature has given the Courts of Common Pleas and Equity the power, or rather has enjoined upon them the duty of appointing appraisers to value the property of individuals, which may be necessary for public purposes, in aid of the internal improvements now carrying on by the State. Will it be pretended, that if any one or more of them should resign, refuse to act, become interested in the question, or from any other cause could not serve, that others might not be appointed in their places ? Such a construction would fall very short of fulfilling the expectations of the Legislature. Indeed, it would be very unfortunate for the person whose property is taken, if it were so. It would not prevent the public works from going on, but it would leave the individual without the means of obtaining compensation. There are a variety of other questions interwoven in this motion, which the Court do not think regularly before them, and which it is not within their province to decide in this way. The motion must, therefore, be discharged.
Coloock, Gantt, Johnson, Richardson and Huger, concurred.
Post. 489.
1 Bail. 10; 2 Bail. 6.