*1 574 home, the renting in her city by
nances of the rooms to tourists orally she been refused because mandamus have absolute should that It true applied her business license. is for a renewal of right legal a clear to in of mandamus will not issue the absence sought the failure enforced, be and performed have the act to and form for in the manner application make an license to right man- might applicant’s the to required ordinarily defeat that questioned be but case, In it can not however, damus. this upon was based license Mrs. Passmore the refusal to the to issue previous and canceling a license city council in the action of the will facts, the clerk not now rezoning her Under property. such not in the form complain application that the was heard to be by city. the prescribed ordinances of the concur.
Judgment All the Justices affirmed. v. GILLESPIE. HUNTER taxpayer, Hunter, capacity in of a citizen and Justice. F. J. the Almand, Gillespie, compel defendant, sought by L. mandamus to the J. writ of provisions City Hapeville, aof Marshal of of to enforce the certain 2, zoning 1950. On The made returnable June ordinance. writ was (after 27, judgment reciting de- 1950, that the entered June the court a plead) granting appear a or mandamus absolute. fendant had failed to judgment entered, 29, 1950, during term at which the was On June the judgment, on a motion to aside and the the defendant filed set vacate action, that, though good ground did he had defense to said he the a hearing any appear nisi, pleadings, on or the the rule because not file at plain- misrepresentations prevented by of and his counsel the he were hearing; alleged that, being of three counsel as to the time the it tiff’s plaintiff’s days 2, hearing for advised before the set June the counsel the counsel, that, plaintiff’s of on account of illness the defendant’s counsel impossible weeks, several be to hear case for and that the it would the notify plaintiff’s defendant’s as to the time counsel would the counsel place hearing set; and of and that the rule was not set down the when any by specified Relying 2. un- on the court for time after June this July 19, 1950, derstanding, any pleadings. did file On the defendant not subject objection, permitted defendant, to file an the to the court pleadings and in the mandamus action. Demurrers defensive answer objections judgment. On filed to the motion to set aside the and were objections thereto, hearing and intro- a of motion evidence was this allegations by supporting in motion. defendant the made the duced the nisi, day that after in rule There was also evidence the rule the set the any hearing, not been set on court for hear- for a had ddwn calendar a practice ing according and to the rules of the court. The defensive
575
pleadings
by
a
filed
the defendant show meritorious defense to the
plaintiff’s
objections of
action. The court overruled the demurrers and
plaintiff,
granted
vacating
setting
judg-
the
order
aside
and
an
and
the
exceptions assigns
plaintiff’s
of
of
error on
ment
June 27. The
bill
these several orders. Held:
superior
plenary
judgments
during
A
retains
control
court
over
entered
*2
they
entered,
the term in
in
of
dis-
which
are
and
the
a sound
exercise
may
them,
cretion
revoke
such discretion will not be controlled
and
2) (46
manifestly
Wyeth,
(1,
E.
unless
abused. Bowen v.
No. 17322. 1951.
Paul Hughes, plaintiff. W. for Reeves, B. McCord and Rex. T. for defendant. Jr.,
Robert Myrtle Lodge No. 1663 al. v. Quattlebaum. et Myrtle Lodge Lodge Justice. and No. Armenia No. Wyatt, 1663, 1930, Lodge against Quattlebaum Mount dis- Sier No. sued out Sam a 2441 possesory warrant, possession realty. seeking to recover the of described Quattlebaum counter-affidavit, pos- alleging filed his was not in that he property tenant, purchase session of the as but under a contract of that entirely performed part, prayed had been for almost on his and he specific performance appointment and the of a receiver. He further alleged plaintiff authority bring “that no has whatever to this action against plaintiffs him.” The trial to disclosed the in the court below unincorporated Lodges, be in Odd Fellow and in verdict resulted a favor of the defendant. Held: fully proposition “This court is to the committed that no suit can be' law- fully prosecuted plaintiff having legal entity, save in the name of a a person. every brought either as an a natural or artificial In suit in this State, plaintiff plain- there must be a real and a defendant. real The may person, quasi- tiff or defendant a natural or be an artificial or a