Fort Sumter Hotel Co. v. Associated Hotels

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Fort Sumter Hotel Co. v. Associated Hotels

142 S.E. 600, 144 S.C. 483, 1928 S.C. LEXIS 66

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 10, 1928

Docket12422

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 S.E. 600 (Fort Sumter Hotel Co. v. Associated Hotels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fort Sumter Hotel Co. v. Associated Hotels, 142 S.E. 600, 144 S.C. 483, 1928 S.C. LEXIS 66 (S.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

This is an application, in the original jurisdiction of the Court, for a writ of prohibition, staying further action in a certain ejectment proceeding, instituted by the plaintiff in the civil and criminal Court of Charleston, under Section 5279, Vol. 3, Code 1922. The objection of the petition to the proceeding is a challenge of the jurisdiction of said Court, upon the ground that, as a matter of law, the contract between the parties does not establish the relation of landlord and tenant between them; that is the legal issue in the case, for it is settled that the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, under the section referred to, is dependent upon the existence of that relation. Stewart-Jones Co. v. Shehan, 127 S. C., 451; 121 S. E., 374.

The relationship of the parties, depending upon the construction of a written instrument, a question solely of law, is presented for determination. State ex rel. Sawyer v. Fort, 24 S. C., 510; State v. Page, 1 Speers, 428 ; 40 Am. Dec., 608. Columbia Co. v. Jones, 119 S. C., 480; 112 S. E., 267. Cothran v. Knight, 47 S. C., 243; 25 S. E., 142.

A careful consideration of the contract leads us to the conclusion that it establishes the relation of principal and agent, or perhaps of partnership; it certainly does not establish that of landlord and tenant. 16 R. C. L., 579; Mead v. Owen, 80 Vt., 273; 67 A., 722; 12 L. R. A. (N. S.), 655; 13 Ann. Cas., 231. State v. Page, 1 Speers, 408; 40 Am. Dec., 608. Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. C., 544; 8 S. E., 1. Columbia Co. v. Jones, 119 S. C., 480; 112 S. E., 267.

The agreement at page 5 of the petition and the memorandum at page 7 will be incorporated in the report of the case.

*490 • It is, therefore, ordered that the prayer of the petition be granted, and that the writ of prohibition issue as prayed for.

Mr. Chief Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices BlEase, Stabler, and Carter concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

This is an application, in the original jurisdiction of the Court, for a writ of prohibition, staying further action in a certain ejectment proceeding, instituted by the plaintiff in the civil and criminal Court of Charleston, under Section 5279, Vol. 3, Code 1922. The objection of the petition to the proceeding is a challenge of the jurisdiction of said Court, upon the ground that, as a matter of law, the contract between the parties does not establish the relation of landlord and tenant between them; that is the legal issue in the case, for it is settled that the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, under the section referred to, is dependent upon the existence of that relation. Stewart-Jones Co. v. Shehan, 127 S. C., 451; 121 S. E., 374.

The relationship of the parties, depending upon the construction of a written instrument, a question solely of law, is presented for determination. State ex rel. Sawyer v. Fort, 24 S. C., 510; State v. Page, 1 Speers, 428 ; 40 Am. Dec., 608. Columbia Co. v. Jones, 119 S. C., 480; 112 S. E., 267. Cothran v. Knight, 47 S. C., 243; 25 S. E., 142.

A careful consideration of the contract leads us to the conclusion that it establishes the relation of principal and agent, or perhaps of partnership; it certainly does not establish that of landlord and tenant. 16 R. C. L., 579; Mead v. Owen, 80 Vt., 273; 67 A., 722; 12 L. R. A. (N. S.), 655; 13 Ann. Cas., 231. State v. Page, 1 Speers, 408; 40 Am. Dec., 608. Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. C., 544; 8 S. E., 1. Columbia Co. v. Jones, 119 S. C., 480; 112 S. E., 267.

The agreement at page 5 of the petition and the memorandum at page 7 will be incorporated in the report of the case.

*490 • It is, therefore, ordered that the prayer of the petition be granted, and that the writ of prohibition issue as prayed for.

Mr. Chief Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices BlEase, Stabler, and Carter concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 600, 144 S.C. 483, 1928 S.C. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fort-sumter-hotel-co-v-associated-hotels-sc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack