Cavalier v. Corley

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cavalier v. Corley

148 S.E.2d 372, 247 S.C. 509, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 289

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 9, 1966

Docket18502

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 S.E.2d 372 (Cavalier v. Corley) 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

Cavalier v. Corley, 148 S.E.2d 372, 247 S.C. 509, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 289 (S.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole issue involved on this appeal is whether the circuit judge erred in granting plaintiff’s convenience of witnesses and promotion of justice motion — Section 10-310, Code of 1962 — -to change the place of trial of this action from Edgefield County, the residence of the defendant, to Green-ville County, where the automobile accident out of which the action arises occurred and where all of the witnesses reside, except the defendant and his wife. It must be resolved against the appellant under the consistent line of decisions of this court, unbroken in recent years, holding that such a motion is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and that the decision of that court will not be disturbed on appeal “except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law.” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600; West’s South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, Par. 965; Ibid., Venue, Par. 51, 52(1). While there are some older decisions which lend some support to counsel’s contrary argument, the facts here are indistinguishable from those of later, controlling-decisions, which require affirmance of the trial court’s allowance of the motion. It would serve no useful purpose to state the facts.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole issue involved on this appeal is whether the circuit judge erred in granting plaintiff’s convenience of witnesses and promotion of justice motion — Section 10-310, Code of 1962 — -to change the place of trial of this action from Edgefield County, the residence of the defendant, to Green-ville County, where the automobile accident out of which the action arises occurred and where all of the witnesses reside, except the defendant and his wife. It must be resolved against the appellant under the consistent line of decisions of this court, unbroken in recent years, holding that such a motion is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and that the decision of that court will not be disturbed on appeal “except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law.” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600; West’s South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, Par. 965; Ibid., Venue, Par. 51, 52(1). While there are some older decisions which lend some support to counsel’s contrary argument, the facts here are indistinguishable from those of later, controlling-decisions, which require affirmance of the trial court’s allowance of the motion. It would serve no useful purpose to state the facts.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E.2d 372, 247 S.C. 509, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavalier-v-corley-sc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack