Glover v. Heyward

91 S.E. 316, 106 S.C. 360, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 27
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 10, 1917
Docket9604
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 316 (Glover v. Heyward) 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
Glover v. Heyward, 91 S.E. 316, 106 S.C. 360, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 27 (S.C. 1917).

Opinion

*361 The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This was a proceeding in a magistrate’s Court, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Judgment was given against appellant by default. From'this judgment appellant appealed to the Circuit Court. The case was heard by his Honor, Judge Mendel L. Smith, who made the following order :

“This case was heard by me on the return to show cause directed to the plaintiff why a former order issued by me should.not be set aside and the case heard on the merits. I ordered the case docketed by the clerk, and, after hearing the return of the plaintiff, heard the matter on the merits. It is ordered that the appeal is hereby dismissed, and that the order staying the proceedings, dated May 17, 1916, is hereby revoked and of no effect.”

From this order this appeal is taken. The respondent raises the point that the order of Judge Smith is not appeal-able. The point is well taken, and is sustained under Carey v. Tolbert, 79 S. C. 264, 60 S. E. 674, where it is said:

“The respondent’s attorney raises the preliminary question whether the order is appealable. Section 368 of the Code provides: Tf the defendant failed to appear before the magistrate, and it is shown by the affidavits served by the appellant, or otherwise, that manifest injustice has been done, and he satisfactorily excuses his default, the Court may, in its discretion, set aside or suspend judgment and order a new trial.’ The order of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in refusing the defendant’s motion was discretionary, and, as the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court that his discretion was abused, the order is not appealable.
“It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.”

No abuse of discretion is shown here. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Jones v. Mayor of Savannah
184 S.E. 353 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E. 316, 106 S.C. 360, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-heyward-sc-1917.