Jones v. A. H. Williams & Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Jones v. A. H. Williams & Co.

77 S.E. 710, 94 S.C. 16, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 96

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 15, 1913

Docket8457

StatusPublished

This text of 77 S.E. 710 (Jones v. A. H. Williams & 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

Jones v. A. H. Williams & Co., 77 S.E. 710, 94 S.C. 16, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 96 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order granting to the plaintiff, leave to file a supplemental complaint.

The rule governing appeals in such cases, is thus stated in Copeland v. Copeland, 60 S. C. 135, 38 S. E. 269: “Since a supplemental pleading is in the nature of an amendment to the pleading, sought to be supplemented, the same rule should, in reason, apply, and must apply, if as stated in Moon v. Johnson, supra, the matter rests in the discretion of the Court. As stated by acting Associate Justice Benet, in Norris v. Clinkscales, 47 S. C. 498, ‘The Courts and text writers all concur, that by judicial discretion is meant sound discretion, guided by fixed legal principles. It must not be arbitrary nor capricious, but must be regulated upon legal grounds — grounds that will make it judicial. It must be controlled by conscience and not by humor.’ In an appeal from the exercise of this discretion, this Court will not examine the evidence, with a view to substitute its judgment, as to its weight and sufficiency for that of the Judge, to whose discretion the matter is submitted. We merely *18 examine the evidence, with a view to' ascertain whether there was abuse of discretion; that is, whether the Court’s action was based upon his view of the evidence, or absence of evidence, or was but an arbitrary or capricious exercise of will, and without regard to. the evidence.”

The appellant has failed to satisfy this Court, that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

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. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order granting to the plaintiff, leave to file a supplemental complaint.

The rule governing appeals in such cases, is thus stated in Copeland v. Copeland, 60 S. C. 135, 38 S. E. 269: “Since a supplemental pleading is in the nature of an amendment to the pleading, sought to be supplemented, the same rule should, in reason, apply, and must apply, if as stated in Moon v. Johnson, supra, the matter rests in the discretion of the Court. As stated by acting Associate Justice Benet, in Norris v. Clinkscales, 47 S. C. 498, ‘The Courts and text writers all concur, that by judicial discretion is meant sound discretion, guided by fixed legal principles. It must not be arbitrary nor capricious, but must be regulated upon legal grounds — grounds that will make it judicial. It must be controlled by conscience and not by humor.’ In an appeal from the exercise of this discretion, this Court will not examine the evidence, with a view to substitute its judgment, as to its weight and sufficiency for that of the Judge, to whose discretion the matter is submitted. We merely *18 examine the evidence, with a view to' ascertain whether there was abuse of discretion; that is, whether the Court’s action was based upon his view of the evidence, or absence of evidence, or was but an arbitrary or capricious exercise of will, and without regard to. the evidence.”

The appellant has failed to satisfy this Court, that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 710, 94 S.C. 16, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-a-h-williams-co-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack