Nat. Loan v. Jones

Decided December 16, 1915

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1915-12-16

Before Watts, A. J., Laurens, July, 1915. The first proceeding was a petition for writ of mandamus, brought by the National Loan and Exchange Bank of Greenwood and W. T. Bailey, petitioner-respondents, against Adolphus W. Jones, John P. Derham and W. G. Query, constituting the South Carolina Tax Commission, and J. W. Canfield, County Auditor, respondents-appellants, complaining of the acts of the tax commission in so far as their acts relate to the assessment of the property…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1915-12-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1966

1 district · 4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Gage,

¶1 dissenting. I dissent, but not on constitutional or Federal grounds; I reserve the privilege to state the grounds of my dissent within a reasonable time hereafter.

Mr. Justice Watts, having heard the cases below, took no part in the consideration of the cases on appeal.

¶2 Note. — The case has been carried to the United States Supreme Court on writ or error, issued December 29, 1915.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Status

Disposition: Reversed

Case posture

Disposition: Reversed.
Posture: Before WATTS, A.J., Laurens, July, 1915. Reversed.The first proceeding was a petition for writ of mandamus, brought by the National Loan and Exchange Bank of Greenwood and W.T. Bailey, petitioner-respondents, against Adolphus W. Jones, John P. Derham and W.G. Query, constituting the South Carolina Tax Commission, and J.W. Canfield, County Auditor, respondents-appellants, complaining of the acts of the tax commission in so far as their acts relate to the assessment of the property of the plaintiff bank for the fiscal year 1915. The petition alleges the unconstitutionality of the act creating the tax commission upon the various grounds set out in the petition and alleges that the acts of the commission, under the act in so far as the assessment of this bank is concerned, are illegal, null and void. The return on behalf of respondents for cause why the write should not issue alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction of the matters and things contained in the said petition on account of the fact that the acts and proceedings and the attempted procedure by defendants was a step in the collection of taxes, and the Court is without jurisdiction to interfere by writ of mandamus, injunction or otherwise. Also, that the Court is without jurisdiction to issue the writ or any order in the cause for the reason that the petitioners have an adequate remedy at law under the provisions of sections 461 and 462 of the Code of 1912, which remedy, it is alleged, is exclusive of any other remedy. Also, that the facts stated in the complaint are not sufficient to entitle petitioners to a writ of mandamus. The matter was heard before his Honor, Associate Justice R.C. Watts; and at the same time there was heard along with this case, the case of The Peoples National Bank of Greenville, South Carolina, a corporation under the laws of the United States, in behalf of itself and all other banks of this State, against A.W. Jones et al. , Commissioners of the South Carolina Tax Commission. This latter case was an action for injunction against the tax commission and was brought in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland county, and upon rule to show cause why the injunction should not issue was heard before his Honor, Associate Justice Watts, upon the rule to show cause. Upon the hearing MR. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WATTS granted the relief prayed for in both actions, directing the issue of the writ of mandamus in the case at bar, and granting injunction asked for in the injunction proceedings. The defendants appealed.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Parallel citations

87 S.E 482