Carey v. Tolbert

60 S.E. 674, 79 S.C. 264, 1908 S.C. LEXIS 54
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 3, 1908
Docket6786
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 S.E. 674 (Carey v. Tolbert) 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
Carey v. Tolbert, 60 S.E. 674, 79 S.C. 264, 1908 S.C. LEXIS 54 (S.C. 1908).

Opinion

The opinion oí the 'Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This action w'as commenced before a magistrate.

The sumlmlon® was dated 6th of August, 1906, and required the defendant to appear at the Magistrate’s office at 10 of dock a. ml., on the 30th of August, 190'6, to answer th'e complaint, or judgment would be given against him by default. The defendant failed to 'appear at 10 o’dlock and the magistrate .postponed the hearing until 2 o’clock p. m. of that day. The defendant still' failed to appear, and the plaintiff introduced testimony to prove the allegations of the complaint, whereupon magistrate rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $85.20.

The defendant appealed under Section 368 of the Code of Procedure, but bis Honor, the Circuit Judge, dimissed the appeal.

He then appealed to this Court.

The respondent’s attorney raises the preliminary question whether the order is appealable.

Section 368 of the Code provides: “If the defendant failed to appear before the magistrate, 'and it is shown by the affidavits served by the 'appellant, or otherwise, that mjanifest injustice has been dañe, and he satisfactorily excuses bis *266 default, the Court may, in its discretion, set aside or suspend judgment amd order a new trial.”

The order oif his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in refusing the defendant’s motion Was discretionary, and, as the appellant ha's failed to satisfy this Court that his discretion wias abused, the order is not appealable.

I't is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit 'Court be affirmed.

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

Related

Glover v. Heyward
91 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 S.E. 674, 79 S.C. 264, 1908 S.C. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-tolbert-sc-1908.