Hagen v. Anderson County

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hagen v. Anderson County

39 S.E. 712, 61 S.C. 490, 1901 S.C. LEXIS 174

DecidedSeptember 7, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 39 S.E. 712 (Hagen v. Anderson County) 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

Hagen v. Anderson County, 39 S.E. 712, 61 S.C. 490, 1901 S.C. LEXIS 174 (S.C. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of -the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

This action was brought under section 1169 of the Revised Statutes, to recover damages for personal injury alleged to 'have been sustained by plaintiff through a defect in a bridge over a ditch on a public high *491 way in Anderson County, occasioned by the neglect or mismanagement of said county. The jury having rendered a verdict for $98 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, which motion was refused. The defendant now appeals from the judgment rendered solely on the ground that there was error in refusing the motion for a new trial.

The refusal of a motion for a new trial is final as to all issues of fact involved. It is only when the verdict Is wholly without any evidence to support it, that it is error of law to refuse a motion for new trial based upon the evidence. Martin v. Jennings, 52 S. C., 382. There was no error of law in this case, for an examination of the testimony shows that there was some testimony tending to establish all the material issues in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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 Jones.

This action was brought under section 1169 of the Revised Statutes, to recover damages for personal injury alleged to 'have been sustained by plaintiff through a defect in a bridge over a ditch on a public high *491 way in Anderson County, occasioned by the neglect or mismanagement of said county. The jury having rendered a verdict for $98 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, which motion was refused. The defendant now appeals from the judgment rendered solely on the ground that there was error in refusing the motion for a new trial.

The refusal of a motion for a new trial is final as to all issues of fact involved. It is only when the verdict Is wholly without any evidence to support it, that it is error of law to refuse a motion for new trial based upon the evidence. Martin v. Jennings, 52 S. C., 382. There was no error of law in this case, for an examination of the testimony shows that there was some testimony tending to establish all the material issues in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.E. 712, 61 S.C. 490, 1901 S.C. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hagen-v-anderson-county-sc-1901.