Connelly v. State Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Connelly v. State Co.

149 S.E. 266, 152 S.C. 1, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 211

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 21, 1929

Docket12722

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 149 S.E. 266 (Connelly v. State 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

Connelly v. State Co., 149 S.E. 266, 152 S.C. 1, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 211 (S.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

This action, in which the defendants, the State Company and John F. Weekly, are jointly charged by the plaintiff, E. *16 G. Connelly, with the composition and publication of an alleged libelous editorial appearing in- The State, á newspaper published by the defendant, the State Company, in the City of Columbia, S. C., was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Allendále County, April 26, 1928. The case comes before this Court on appeal by the defendant, the State Company, from an order of his Honor, Judge J. Henry Johnson, refusing a motion of the defendant, the State Company, to-transfer the case against that defendant from Allendale County to Richland County. The motion was made upon the ground that, “while the defendant, John F. Weekly, is a resident of Allendale County the defendant, the State Company, is a resident of Richland County, and the action should have been brought in Richland County, because the defendant Weekly, did not jointly with the- State Company compose and publish the alleged libelous editorial.” In passing upon the motion his Honor, Judge Johnson, considered the allegations of the complaint, the editorial in question, and certain affidavits, also a letter written by the defendant, Weekly, to which reference is made in the order issued by his Honor, Judge Johnson, in refusing the motion.

After careful consideration, we have reached the conclusion that, for the reasons stated in the order of Judge Johnson, the motion to transfer was properly refused. In reaching this conclusion, we, of course, express no opinion as to the merit or demerit of the case, and no findings of the facts alleged. We simply hold that, under the showing made, considered in the light of the law of this State governing such matters, it was the duty of Judge Johnson to refuse the motion to transfer the case from Allendale County to the County of Richland.

The exceptions are therefore overruled, and it is the judgment of this Court that the order appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Note : Ret the complaint, the order of Judge Johnson, and the exceptions be reported.

*17 Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease;, and Stabler, and Mr. Associate; Justice Graydon concur.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

This action, in which the defendants, the State Company and John F. Weekly, are jointly charged by the plaintiff, E. *16 G. Connelly, with the composition and publication of an alleged libelous editorial appearing in- The State, á newspaper published by the defendant, the State Company, in the City of Columbia, S. C., was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Allendále County, April 26, 1928. The case comes before this Court on appeal by the defendant, the State Company, from an order of his Honor, Judge J. Henry Johnson, refusing a motion of the defendant, the State Company, to-transfer the case against that defendant from Allendale County to Richland County. The motion was made upon the ground that, “while the defendant, John F. Weekly, is a resident of Allendale County the defendant, the State Company, is a resident of Richland County, and the action should have been brought in Richland County, because the defendant Weekly, did not jointly with the- State Company compose and publish the alleged libelous editorial.” In passing upon the motion his Honor, Judge Johnson, considered the allegations of the complaint, the editorial in question, and certain affidavits, also a letter written by the defendant, Weekly, to which reference is made in the order issued by his Honor, Judge Johnson, in refusing the motion.

After careful consideration, we have reached the conclusion that, for the reasons stated in the order of Judge Johnson, the motion to transfer was properly refused. In reaching this conclusion, we, of course, express no opinion as to the merit or demerit of the case, and no findings of the facts alleged. We simply hold that, under the showing made, considered in the light of the law of this State governing such matters, it was the duty of Judge Johnson to refuse the motion to transfer the case from Allendale County to the County of Richland.

The exceptions are therefore overruled, and it is the judgment of this Court that the order appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Note : Ret the complaint, the order of Judge Johnson, and the exceptions be reported.

*17 Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease;, and Stabler, and Mr. Associate; Justice Graydon concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E. 266, 152 S.C. 1, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connelly-v-state-co-sc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack