MURRAY, MCSWEEN, AND PATTON, AS THE STATE DISPENSARY COMMISSION,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA EX REL. RAY, TRUSTEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a mandamus order requiring the State Dispensary Commission to pay a judgment from its funds despite federal court orders restraining such payment, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision, holding that the state court properly prioritized compliance with state law requiring the payment over the federal restraining orders.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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. 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cargile v. N.Y. Tr. Co., 67 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1933)…inst a state, without its consent, by a citizen of another state, even in eases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina. 240 U. S. 305, 36 S. Ct. 293, 60 L. Ed. 658; Murray v. South Carolina, 213 U. S. 174, 29 S. Ct. 465, 53 L. Ed. 752; Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 29 S. Ct. 458, 53 L. Ed. 742; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 504, 33 L. Ed. 842; Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 41 S. Ct. 588, 65 L. Ed. 1057; Pennoyer v. M…1 / 2