Stallings v. Mallory

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Stallings v. Mallory

1 S.E.2d 620, 189 S.C. 468, 1939 S.C. LEXIS 187

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided March 10, 1939·No. 14838·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fisi-iburnE.

The respondent brought this proceeding for a writ of mandamus, to require the appellants, as the members and as the clerk of the County Board of Spartanburg .County, to issue her a warrant which she alleges is due her for seven months’ salary (October 21, 1937, to May 21, 1938), as stenographer for Dudley K. Gaffney, Magistrate. She seeks further to require Paul M. Murph, as county treasurer, to pay the said warrant when issued.

After hearing the matter upon a rule to show cause, the Circuit Judge held the return of the appellants insufficient, and the right of the respondent to the issuance of the writ was sustained.

The exceptions raise several questions, all of which we have considered with care. However, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them, as an examination of the record satisfies us that they were correctly disposed of by the Circuit Judge. Plis decree, therefore, from which this appeal is taken and which will be reported, is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Bonham and Baker concur. Mr. Justice Carter did not participate on account of illness.

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 Fisi-iburnE.

The respondent brought this proceeding for a writ of mandamus, to require the appellants, as the members and as the clerk of the County Board of Spartanburg .County, to issue her a warrant which she alleges is due her for seven months’ salary (October 21, 1937, to May 21, 1938), as stenographer for Dudley K. Gaffney, Magistrate. She seeks further to require Paul M. Murph, as county treasurer, to pay the said warrant when issued.

After hearing the matter upon a rule to show cause, the Circuit Judge held the return of the appellants insufficient, and the right of the respondent to the issuance of the writ was sustained.

The exceptions raise several questions, all of which we have considered with care. However, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them, as an examination of the record satisfies us that they were correctly disposed of by the Circuit Judge. Plis decree, therefore, from which this appeal is taken and which will be reported, is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Bonham and Baker concur. Mr. Justice Carter did not participate on account of illness.

Stallings v. Mallory, 1 S.E.2d 620, 189 S.C. 468, 1939 S.C. LEXIS 187 (S.C. 1939).

Pincite

1 S.E.2d 620 (Stallings v. Mallory) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.