Drummond v. Edwards

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Drummond v. Edwards

120 S.E. 366, 126 S.C. 435, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 213

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 13, 1923

Docket11377

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 S.E. 366 (Drummond v. Edwards) 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

Drummond v. Edwards, 120 S.E. 366, 126 S.C. 435, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 213 (S.C. 1923).

Pincite

Opinions

December 13, 1923. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant for the sum of $79.00 and costs in a Magistrate's Court. *Page 436 On the day set for trial the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff proved his case, and thereupon judgment was rendered on December 13, 1922. On January 20, 1923, after transcript of the judgment had been filed and docketed in the Clerk's office for Greenville County, defendant served on plaintiff's attorney notice of a motion to vacate the judgment and for a new trial before Hon. M.F. Ansel, County Judge. On February 14, 1923, the County Judge filed an order refusing the motion. From that order this appeal is taken.

Assuming that the matter was properly before the County Judge (a point not raised, as to which, see Doty v. Duvall,19 S.C. 143), his authority to grant relief was the discretionary power conferred by Section 225, Code of Civil Procedure 1912, now Section 437, Code Civil Procedure 1922. The ground upon which it was sought to set aside the judgment was excusable neglect, based upon the allegation that defendant was unavoidably detained from the trial on account of sickness. The order of the County Judge is tantamount to a finding of fact against the appellant's contention, and a careful examination of the record discloses that there was adequate evidential basis for the finding. In such case no ground exists for imputing to the County Court the manifest abuse of discretion which will alone warrant this Court in reversing such an order for "error of law." Buttz v. Campbell, 15 S.C. 614. Truett v. Rains,17 S.C. 451. Le Conte v. Irwin, 19 S.C. 557. Smallsv. Society, 23 S.C. 602. In re Bugg's Estate, 71 S.C. 444;51 S.E., 263. Bank v. Talbert, 97 S.C. 74;81 S.E., 305.

The exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the County Court affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MESSRS. JUSTICES WATTS, FRASER and COTHRAN concur. *Page 437

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur in this judgment with reluctance, as I think that his showing entitled defendant a new trial; but under Section 407, Code of 1912 (Section 669, Code of 1922), his remedy was by appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate (Doty v. Duvall, 19 S.C. 149.Lawrence v. Isear, 27 S.C. 244; 3 S.E., 222. Speer v.Meschine, 46 S.C. 510; 24 S.E., 329), and not by motion in the County Court.

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

December 13, 1923. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant for the sum of $79.00 and costs in a Magistrate's Court. *Page 436 On the day set for trial the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff proved his case, and thereupon judgment was rendered on December 13, 1922. On January 20, 1923, after transcript of the judgment had been filed and docketed in the Clerk's office for Greenville County, defendant served on plaintiff's attorney notice of a motion to vacate the judgment and for a new trial before Hon. M.F. Ansel, County Judge. On February 14, 1923, the County Judge filed an order refusing the motion. From that order this appeal is taken.

Assuming that the matter was properly before the County Judge (a point not raised, as to which, see Doty v. Duvall,19 S.C. 143), his authority to grant relief was the discretionary power conferred by Section 225, Code of Civil Procedure 1912, now Section 437, Code Civil Procedure 1922. The ground upon which it was sought to set aside the judgment was excusable neglect, based upon the allegation that defendant was unavoidably detained from the trial on account of sickness. The order of the County Judge is tantamount to a finding of fact against the appellant's contention, and a careful examination of the record discloses that there was adequate evidential basis for the finding. In such case no ground exists for imputing to the County Court the manifest abuse of discretion which will alone warrant this Court in reversing such an order for "error of law." Buttz v. Campbell, 15 S.C. 614. Truett v. Rains,17 S.C. 451. Le Conte v. Irwin, 19 S.C. 557. Smallsv. Society, 23 S.C. 602. In re Bugg's Estate, 71 S.C. 444;51 S.E., 263. Bank v. Talbert, 97 S.C. 74;81 S.E., 305.

The exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the County Court affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MESSRS. JUSTICES WATTS, FRASER and COTHRAN concur. *Page 437

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur in this judgment with reluctance, as I think that his showing entitled defendant a new trial; but under Section 407, Code of 1912 (Section 669, Code of 1922), his remedy was by appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate (Doty v. Duvall, 19 S.C. 149.Lawrence v. Isear, 27 S.C. 244; 3 S.E., 222. Speer v.Meschine, 46 S.C. 510; 24 S.E., 329), and not by motion in the County Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 366, 126 S.C. 435, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drummond-v-edwards-sc-1923.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack