Lee v. Kirby

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lee v. Kirby

133 S.E.2d 127, 243 S.C. 185, 1963 S.C. LEXIS 26

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 4, 1963

Docket18116

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 133 S.E.2d 127 (Lee v. Kirby) 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

Lee v. Kirby, 133 S.E.2d 127, 243 S.C. 185, 1963 S.C. LEXIS 26 (S.C. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Brailsford, Justice.

This action for personal injury and property damage resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $1,000.00. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was inadequate was granted by the court. The defendant appealed upon one exception which charges that the court erred in granting a new trial on this ground, “In that there was sufficient evidence introduced in the trial to substantiate the verdict of the jury as rendered, there being conflicting testimony as to the period of plaintiff’s disability, the value of the property of plaintiff prior to the collision, and the value of the property subsequent to such collision.” In the light of the settled rule that a trial judge has the authority and responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence, the exception fails to embody a meritorious assignment of error of law. An order granting a new trial based upon a consideration of the evidence and a conclusion therefrom by the trial judge contrary to that of the jury is not appealable. Donkle v. Forster, 238 S. C. 90, 119 S. E. (2d) 231; Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S. C. 573, 118 S. E. (2d) 340; Sellars v. Collins, 212 S. C. 26, 46 S. E. (2d) 176. Therefore, the exception presents no issue for review by this court.

Appeal dismissed.

Taylor, C. J., and Moss, Lewis and Bussey, JJ., concur.

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

Brailsford, Justice.

This action for personal injury and property damage resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $1,000.00. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was inadequate was granted by the court. The defendant appealed upon one exception which charges that the court erred in granting a new trial on this ground, “In that there was sufficient evidence introduced in the trial to substantiate the verdict of the jury as rendered, there being conflicting testimony as to the period of plaintiff’s disability, the value of the property of plaintiff prior to the collision, and the value of the property subsequent to such collision.” In the light of the settled rule that a trial judge has the authority and responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence, the exception fails to embody a meritorious assignment of error of law. An order granting a new trial based upon a consideration of the evidence and a conclusion therefrom by the trial judge contrary to that of the jury is not appealable. Donkle v. Forster, 238 S. C. 90, 119 S. E. (2d) 231; Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S. C. 573, 118 S. E. (2d) 340; Sellars v. Collins, 212 S. C. 26, 46 S. E. (2d) 176. Therefore, the exception presents no issue for review by this court.

Appeal dismissed.

Taylor, C. J., and Moss, Lewis and Bussey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E.2d 127, 243 S.C. 185, 1963 S.C. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-kirby-sc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack