Adams v. Duffie

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Adams v. Duffie

137 S.E.2d 276, 244 S.C. 365, 1964 S.C. LEXIS 105

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 24, 1964

Docket18230

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 137 S.E.2d 276 (Adams v. Duffie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Duffie, 137 S.E.2d 276, 244 S.C. 365, 1964 S.C. LEXIS 105 (S.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this actiqn for the recovery of damages arising out of an automobile collision the verdict was for the plaintiff. The trial judge granted defendant’s motion for a new trial, not on the ground of any legal error, “but solely on the ground that the verdict was contrary to, the greater weight of the evidence and on the ground that I am not satisfied with the justice of the case and feel that it should be tried before another jury.” The plaintiff appeals.

It is clear that the order granting a new trial was based upon a consideration of the evidence and a conclusion therefrom by the trial judge, contrary to that of the jury. It is well settled in this state that the trial judge has the authority and responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence and that an order granting a new trial on such ground is not appealable. Lee v. Kirby, 243 S. C. 185, 133 S. E. (2d) 127; Mack v. Frito-Lay et al., 243 S. C. 376, 133 S. E. (2d) 833.

Appeal dismissed.

Taylor, C. J., and Moss, Lewis, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this actiqn for the recovery of damages arising out of an automobile collision the verdict was for the plaintiff. The trial judge granted defendant’s motion for a new trial, not on the ground of any legal error, “but solely on the ground that the verdict was contrary to, the greater weight of the evidence and on the ground that I am not satisfied with the justice of the case and feel that it should be tried before another jury.” The plaintiff appeals.

It is clear that the order granting a new trial was based upon a consideration of the evidence and a conclusion therefrom by the trial judge, contrary to that of the jury. It is well settled in this state that the trial judge has the authority and responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence and that an order granting a new trial on such ground is not appealable. Lee v. Kirby, 243 S. C. 185, 133 S. E. (2d) 127; Mack v. Frito-Lay et al., 243 S. C. 376, 133 S. E. (2d) 833.

Appeal dismissed.

Taylor, C. J., and Moss, Lewis, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E.2d 276, 244 S.C. 365, 1964 S.C. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-duffie-sc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack