Nunnamaker v. Smith's

82 S.E. 675, 98 S.C. 466, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 62
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedAugust 28, 1914
Docket8927
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 675 (Nunnamaker v. Smith's) 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
Nunnamaker v. Smith's, 82 S.E. 675, 98 S.C. 466, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 62 (S.C. 1914).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Hydrick.

The defendant, Smith’s, is a corporation and the defendant, H. K. Smith, the president-treasurer and manager thereof, were sued jointly in this action for slander. The evidence showed that if the tort was committed, it was done by and through the agency of the defendant, H. K. Smith. The Court instructed the jury that they might find a verdict against either or both defendants. The jury found against the corporation only. On motion of plaintiff, the Court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial, on the ground that it had erred in the instruction that the verdict might be against either or both defendants, and held that the verdict acquitting the agent and finding the corporation guilty was self-contradictory. The defendant, H. K. Smith, appealed.

An order granting a new trial is not appealable, except in cases where this Court can render judgment absolute upon the right of the appellant, if it shall determine that no *468 error was committed in granting the new trial. This conclusion was reached in Daughty v. Northwestern R. Co., 92 S. C. 361, 75 S. E. 553, after mature deliberation and a. review of all the decided cases. This is not such a case; because, if the Court should decide that there was no error in granting the new trial, it could not render judgment absolute upon the right of the appellant, since he has been acquitted of the slander by the jury. If we should find no error, we could only send the case back for trial. Therefore, the order is not appealable.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Snipes v. Davis, Director General
127 S.E. 447 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 S.E. 675, 98 S.C. 466, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunnamaker-v-smiths-sc-1914.