Delk v. Zorn
Supreme Court of South Carolina
The first case is an application in the original jurisdiction of the Court by Amos Hooper and Brown Colvin for writ of habeas corpus; they having been imprisoned by a magistrate who held the office of trial justice at the adoption of the Constitution of 1895, and whose term had not expired. The second is an action by Henry K. Delk against John C. Zorn to foreclose a rent lien. It was tried before magistrate February 1st, 1896. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
The first case is an application in the original jurisdiction of the Court by Amos Hooper and Brown Colvin for writ of habeas corpus; they having been imprisoned by a magistrate who held the office of trial justice at the adoption of the Constitution of 1895, and whose term had not expired. The second is an action by Henry K. Delk against John C. Zorn to foreclose a rent lien. It was tried before magistrate February 1st, 1896. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Circuit Judge reversed judgment below. Plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The only questions raised in these two cases is whether magistrates have under the Constitution of 1895 the powers and jurisdiction formerly exercised by trial justices. We will first mention the sections of the Constitution touching this question and then proceed to a *150consideration of them. Sections 20, 21, 23, and 34, article V., and subdivisions first, third, and sixth of section 11, article XVII., of the Constitution of 1895, are as follows:
Sec. 20, art. V.: “A sufficient number of magistrates shall be appointed and commissioned by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Massey v. GlennSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
- Lillard v. MeltonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
- McAulay v. McAulaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
- Rufus Rivers v. James Smith, Jr.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2025