Martin v. McMurphy

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Martin v. McMurphy

7 S.C.L. 762

DecidedApril 15, 1816

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.C.L. 762 (Martin v. McMurphy) 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

Martin v. McMurphy, 7 S.C.L. 762 (S.C. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, J.

The only ground for the prohibition in this case, was the want of a written lease. The magistrates in answer to the rule to show cause, merely certified their proceedings, and require the court to determine the question upon a view of these proceedings. They do not shew that there was any written lease, nor was it even pretended. Indeed the return was a tacit acknowledgment that the allegation in the suggestion was true. The prohibition, therefore, was properly granted; for magistrates have no such jurisdiction, except where there is a written lease. The motion must, therefore, be rejected.

Justices Grimke, Smith, Bay and Colcock concurred.

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

Nott, J.

The only ground for the prohibition in this case, was the want of a written lease. The magistrates in answer to the rule to show cause, merely certified their proceedings, and require the court to determine the question upon a view of these proceedings. They do not shew that there was any written lease, nor was it even pretended. Indeed the return was a tacit acknowledgment that the allegation in the suggestion was true. The prohibition, therefore, was properly granted; for magistrates have no such jurisdiction, except where there is a written lease. The motion must, therefore, be rejected.

Justices Grimke, Smith, Bay and Colcock concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.C.L. 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-mcmurphy-sc-1816.