MURRAY, McSWEEN, AND PATTON, AS THE STATE DISPENSARY COMMISSION, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. RAY, TRUSTEE

Supreme Court

MURRAY, McSWEEN, AND PATTON, AS THE STATE DISPENSARY COMMISSION, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. RAY, TRUSTEE

213 U.S. 174, 29 S. Ct. 465, 53 L. Ed. 752, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1864

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 5, 1909

Docket605

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 213 U.S. 174 (MURRAY, McSWEEN, AND PATTON, AS THE STATE DISPENSARY COMMISSION, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. RAY, TRUSTEE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MURRAY, McSWEEN, AND PATTON, AS THE STATE DISPENSARY COMMISSION, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. RAY, TRUSTEE, 213 U.S. 174, 29 S. Ct. 465, 53 L. Ed. 752, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1864 (1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding in mandamus commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina to compel the commission appointed under the authority of the act of the general assembly of that State, approved February 16, 1907, providing for the winding up of the affairs of the state dispensary, to comply with an act of the general assembly, approved February 24, 1908, requiring the payment of a certain judgment out of the funds in the hands of the commission. It was set up in justification of the refusal to obey the command of the statute that the commission was restrained and enjoined from paying out the fund by orders of the Circuit Court of the United States, made in the suits of the Wilson Distilling Company and the Fleischmann Company, the validity of which orders was the subject of consideration in the case of Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, No. 625, this t§rm,'just decided. Upon the authority of the decision in State ex rel. *175 J. F. Lyon v. W. J. Murray and others, 79 S. Car. 316, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the return of the commission was insufficient, and ordered a peremptory mandamus to issue. A writ of error was thereupon prosecuted from this court, upon the theory that the court below had declined to give full faith and credit to the orders and decrees of the Circuit Court of the United States in the cases mentioned.

The determination of the questions of a Federal nature, arising in this case, is controlled by the decision made in Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, No. 625, this term, ante, p. 151, heretofore referred to, and, upon the authority of that decision, the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is

Affirmed*

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.

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

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding in mandamus commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina to compel the commission appointed under the authority of the act of the general assembly of that State, approved February 16, 1907, providing for the winding up of the affairs of the state dispensary, to comply with an act of the general assembly, approved February 24, 1908, requiring the payment of a certain judgment out of the funds in the hands of the commission. It was set up in justification of the refusal to obey the command of the statute that the commission was restrained and enjoined from paying out the fund by orders of the Circuit Court of the United States, made in the suits of the Wilson Distilling Company and the Fleischmann Company, the validity of which orders was the subject of consideration in the case of Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, No. 625, this t§rm,'just decided. Upon the authority of the decision in State ex rel. *175 J. F. Lyon v. W. J. Murray and others, 79 S. Car. 316, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the return of the commission was insufficient, and ordered a peremptory mandamus to issue. A writ of error was thereupon prosecuted from this court, upon the theory that the court below had declined to give full faith and credit to the orders and decrees of the Circuit Court of the United States in the cases mentioned.

The determination of the questions of a Federal nature, arising in this case, is controlled by the decision made in Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, No. 625, this term, ante, p. 151, heretofore referred to, and, upon the authority of that decision, the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is

Affirmed*

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 U.S. 174, 29 S. Ct. 465, 53 L. Ed. 752, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-mcsween-and-patton-as-the-state-dispensary-commission-v-state-scotus-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack