McDermaid v. Earnest
This text of 35 S.C.L. 192 (McDermaid v. Earnest) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this case, we think the whole matter complained of, as to ordering the case on for trial, and granting the motion for non-suit, was entirely within the discretion of the Judge below.
After the non-suit was granted, the Judge could not, without the consent of the defendaut, or his attorneys, set it aside, and restore the case to the docket; for the nonsuit is as'much a legal ending of the cause as a verdict; and in the case of The Ex’trs. of Thomas v. J & J. D. Brown, it was held that the Judge who tried the cause could not set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. The same consequence must attend a nonsuit.
That no Court has the power to set aside a non-suit, properly ordered, without the consent of the party in whose favor it is rendered, is the plain inference from McColum v. Massey and McNeill.
The motion is dismissed.
I think it material to observe that the regular term of the Court had expired, before the motion to set aside the non-suit was made.
Motion refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 S.C.L. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermaid-v-earnest-scctapp-1850.