Burgess v. Crumpton

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Burgess v. Crumpton

77 S.E. 356, 93 S.C. 562, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 45

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 14, 1913

Docket8445

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 356 (Burgess v. Crumpton) 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

Burgess v. Crumpton, 77 S.E. 356, 93 S.C. 562, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 45 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1 Upon (the call of this case for hearing in this Court, it was made to appear to the Court that'after the appeal had been taken and perfected and the record printed for the hearing of the appeal, and while the appeal was pending in this Court, but before it was heard, the defendant, who- was appellant, made a motion- in the Circuit Court to vacate the judgment appealed from and grant a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence; that his motion was granted, and that the new trial was had, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant, from which no appeal has been taken. It necessarily follows that this appeal -cannot -be further prosecuted.

2 Appellant’s attorney asked that the Court provide in its order dismissing the appeal that he be allowed the necessary disbursements of .the appeal, but the Court cannot make such am order, because it has no- original jurisdiction of the matter. This Court can only review the orders of the Circuit .Counts- with regard to the taxation -of the costs and disbursements incident to- appeals. *563 Bradley v. Rodelsperger, 6 S. C. 290; Huff v. Watkins, 20 S. C. 477; Dilling v. Foster, 21 S. C. 334; Cooke v. Poole, 26 S. C. 321, 2 S. E. 609; Hecht v. Freisleben, 28 S. C. 181, 5 S. E. 475.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, without prejudice and without any intimation of opinion as to the rights of either party with regard to the costs and disbursements of the appeal.

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

Per Curiam.

1 Upon (the call of this case for hearing in this Court, it was made to appear to the Court that'after the appeal had been taken and perfected and the record printed for the hearing of the appeal, and while the appeal was pending in this Court, but before it was heard, the defendant, who- was appellant, made a motion- in the Circuit Court to vacate the judgment appealed from and grant a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence; that his motion was granted, and that the new trial was had, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant, from which no appeal has been taken. It necessarily follows that this appeal -cannot -be further prosecuted.

2 Appellant’s attorney asked that the Court provide in its order dismissing the appeal that he be allowed the necessary disbursements of .the appeal, but the Court cannot make such am order, because it has no- original jurisdiction of the matter. This Court can only review the orders of the Circuit .Counts- with regard to the taxation -of the costs and disbursements incident to- appeals. *563 Bradley v. Rodelsperger, 6 S. C. 290; Huff v. Watkins, 20 S. C. 477; Dilling v. Foster, 21 S. C. 334; Cooke v. Poole, 26 S. C. 321, 2 S. E. 609; Hecht v. Freisleben, 28 S. C. 181, 5 S. E. 475.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, without prejudice and without any intimation of opinion as to the rights of either party with regard to the costs and disbursements of the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 356, 93 S.C. 562, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-crumpton-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack