Opinion
19819
May 7, 1974.
Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Joseph C. Coleman, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. Jones, Staff Atty., of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the Lower Court's erring in granting the Writ of Mandamus inasmuch as the Respondent has unreasonably delayed making his motion for a Writ of Mandamus and has failed to offer any reason for his delay: 17 S.C. (36 S.C. Rep.) 563 at 566; 68 S.C. 26, 46 S.E. 539; 31 S.C. 84, 9 S.E. 682; 25 S.C. 100; 168 S.C. 272, 167 S.E. 465 at 468; 21 C.J. 210; 43 S.C. 436, 21 S.E. 277 at 279; 191 S.C. 105, 3 S.E.2d 816; 157 S.C. 297, 154 S.E. 415; 205 S.C. 377, 32 S.E.2d 147; 115 S.C. 10, 104 S.E. 325; 200 S.E.2d 390; 68 S.C. 26, 46 S.E. 539 at 543; Act No. 137, Acts of 1973, amending Sec. 7-302, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962; 84 S.C. 534, 66 S.E. 1000 at 1001; 91 2. C. 399, 74 S.E. 930.
Messrs. Jenrette Wheless, of North Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.
May 7, 1974.
This is an appeal from a Writ of Mandamus issued by the Civil and Criminal Court of Horry County and directed to the Recorder of the City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that mandamus is the highest judicial writ known to the law and is issued only to enforce a clear legal right requiring the performance of only ministerial duties; and that an applicant for mandamus, to be entitled thereto, must show a duty upon respondent to perform the act, that the duty is ministerial in character, that the applicant has a specific right for which discharge of the duty is necessary, and that he has no other remedy. See cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Mandamus, Key Nos. 1, 10 and 12.
Under these well settled principles of law it is clear that the Writ of Mandamus herein was erroneously issued and the judgment below is, accordingly,
Reversed.