Carpenter Brothers v. Rector, Sheriff

Full title: CARPENTER BROTHERS ET AL. v. RECTOR, SHERIFF OF GREENVILLE COUNTY ET AL

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Feb 8, 1929

149 S.C. 188 (S.C. 1929)

146 S.E. 693

Opinion

12583

February 8, 1929.

In the original jurisdiction, Fall Term, 1928. Injunction granted.

Messrs. Price Poag, for plaintiffs, cite: Secs. 713, 714, 717, Cr. Code not applicable to corporations: 143 S.C. 282; 107 S.C. 349; 100 S.W. 705; 10 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1015. Same, discriminatory between corporations and natural persons: 32 S.C. 123; 75 S.C. 62; 79 S.C. 9; 21 L.R.A. (N.S.), 242; 113 U.S. 27; 125 S.C. 530; 66 S.C. 37, Id., 219; 50 A.L.R., 1518; 108 Atl., 813; 135 S.W. 773; 25 A. E. Ann. Cas., 805; 113 U.S. 709; 62 L.R.A., 407. Sec. 717 gives magistrates jurisdiction beyond that allowed by Sec. 21, Ar. 5, Const. 1895. Cases distinguished: 100 S.C. 242; 2 Strob., 521. As to jurisdiction of Magistrates: 28 S.C. 52; 106 S.C. 224. "Sunday": Websters New Int. Dict. As to establishment of religion: 68 So., 116; 39 Ann. Cas., 806; 92 N.E., 251; 29 L.R.A. (N. S), 442.

Attorney General John M. Daniel, and Assistant Attorney Generals Cordie Page, and J. Ivey Humphrey, for respondents, cite: "Necessity": 81 S.C. 197; 2 McC., 446; 2 Strob., 521; 74 S.C. 214; 116 S.C. 77; 94 S.E., 154. Equity possesses no power or jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining threatened criminal prosecution: 25 L.R.A. (N.S.), 208; 125 N.Y., 784; 74 S.C. 483; 2 L.R.A. (N.S.), 633; Storey's Eq. Juris., Sec. 983; 124 U.S. 210; 172 U.S. 31; 5 Pom. Eq. Juris., 1890. Exception to rule: 72 S.C. 90; 203 U.S. 214; 239 U.S. 37-8; 264 U.S. 143; 223 U.S. 621.

February 8, 1929. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE BLEASE.

This case is controlled by the case of Xepapas et al., Petitioners, v. Richardson, Chief Constable, et al., Respondents, 146 S.E., 686, the opinion in which is filed herewith.

It is the judgment of this Court that the petitioners are entitled to an order of injunction restraining and enjoining the defendants from attempting to enforce the provisions of Sections 714 and 717 of the Criminal Code, as prayed for in their petition, and such order will issue.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WATTS and MR. JUSTICE STABLER concur.

MESSRS. JUSTICES COTHRAN and CARTER concur in result.

MR. JUSTICE CARTER (concurring):

I feel that I am bound by the opinion in the recent case of Xepapas et al. v. Richardson, to which I did not agree.