Clark v. Southern Express Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Clark v. Southern Express Co.

85 S.E. 720, 101 S.C. 299, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 123

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 20, 1915

Docket9113

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 720 (Clark v. Southern Express Co.) 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

Clark v. Southern Express Co., 85 S.E. 720, 101 S.C. 299, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 123 (S.C. 1915).

Pincite

Opinions

May 20, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The question presented by this appeal is foreclosed by the decision of this Court in the case of VarnvilleFurniture Co. v. Railway, 98 S.C. 63, 79 S.E. 700.

Appellant asked leave to amend its exception by adding thereto a ground which was not taken in the Courts below. If the exception had been taken in due time, this Court would not have considered the additional ground upon which the constitutionality of the *Page 302 statute is sought to be assailed, because it is well settled by numerous decisions that this Court will not consider any point raised by an exception, unless it appears in the record that it was presented to, or considered by, the Court below.

Judgment affirmed. Let the remittitur be stayed for 30 days to enable appellant to apply for a writ of error.

Thereafter, during the period the remittitur was stayed, a petition for rehearing was filed, and the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Charleston WesternCarolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597,35 Sup. Ct. 715, 100 S.C. 229a, was filed.

The petition for rehearing being considered, the Court filed the following order, July 8, 1915:

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

May 20, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The question presented by this appeal is foreclosed by the decision of this Court in the case of VarnvilleFurniture Co. v. Railway, 98 S.C. 63, 79 S.E. 700.

Appellant asked leave to amend its exception by adding thereto a ground which was not taken in the Courts below. If the exception had been taken in due time, this Court would not have considered the additional ground upon which the constitutionality of the *Page 302 statute is sought to be assailed, because it is well settled by numerous decisions that this Court will not consider any point raised by an exception, unless it appears in the record that it was presented to, or considered by, the Court below.

Judgment affirmed. Let the remittitur be stayed for 30 days to enable appellant to apply for a writ of error.

Thereafter, during the period the remittitur was stayed, a petition for rehearing was filed, and the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Charleston WesternCarolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597,35 Sup. Ct. 715, 100 S.C. 229a, was filed.

The petition for rehearing being considered, the Court filed the following order, July 8, 1915:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 720, 101 S.C. 299, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-southern-express-co-sc-1915.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack