¶1The 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 prohibítion, therefore, was properly granted; for magistrates have no such jurisdiction, except where there is a written lease. The motion must, therefore, be rejected.
5 S.C.L. 555
Martin v. M'Murphy
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 15, 1816
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1816-04-15
Rule to shew cause why a prohibition to stay the proceedings of certain magistrates acting under the act of 1812, for the relief of landlords, should not be granted. In this' case there was no written lease, and the court ordered the prohibition. A motion is now made to set aside the prohibition, on the following grounds: 1.
Decided 1816-04-15