School Dist. No. 19 v. Marion County

Supreme Court of South Carolina

School Dist. No. 19 v. Marion County

109 S.E. 799, 118 S.C. 81

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 6, 1921

Docket10762

StatusPublished

This text of 109 S.E. 799 (School Dist. No. 19 v. Marion 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

School Dist. No. 19 v. Marion County, 109 S.E. 799, 118 S.C. 81 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinions

December 6th, 1921. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The following statement appears in the record:

"This action was commenced by respondent against appellant on September 1, 1919, for damages alleged to have been sustained by respondent from the cutting down of trees by road hands on respondent's lot. To the complaint the appellant interposed a demurrer, which was sustained by the Circuit Judge, and the order of the Circuit Judge was reversed on appeal. 114 S.C. 382; 103 S.E., 767. The case was tried on its merits at the spring term of the Court of Common Pleas for Marion County, and the jury gave respondent a verdict for $250.00. Within due time appellant gave notice of intention to appeal."

There are two reasons why the exceptions cannot be sustained. In the first place, the questions raised are resadjudicata: and in the second place the principles for which the appellant contends are concluded by the cases ofFaust v. Richland County and Kelly v. Richland County,117 S.C. 251, 109 S.E., 151, in which the opinions were recently filed; the decisions having been rendered by the Court en banc. *Page 83

Appeal dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur in the ground that the former appeal is res adjudicata. The judgment in that appeal is, in my opinion, wrong and should have been overruled, for the reasons given by me in the case of Faust v.Richland County. Both cases will yet be overruled.

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

December 6th, 1921. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The following statement appears in the record:

"This action was commenced by respondent against appellant on September 1, 1919, for damages alleged to have been sustained by respondent from the cutting down of trees by road hands on respondent's lot. To the complaint the appellant interposed a demurrer, which was sustained by the Circuit Judge, and the order of the Circuit Judge was reversed on appeal. 114 S.C. 382; 103 S.E., 767. The case was tried on its merits at the spring term of the Court of Common Pleas for Marion County, and the jury gave respondent a verdict for $250.00. Within due time appellant gave notice of intention to appeal."

There are two reasons why the exceptions cannot be sustained. In the first place, the questions raised are resadjudicata: and in the second place the principles for which the appellant contends are concluded by the cases ofFaust v. Richland County and Kelly v. Richland County,117 S.C. 251, 109 S.E., 151, in which the opinions were recently filed; the decisions having been rendered by the Court en banc. *Page 83

Appeal dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur in the ground that the former appeal is res adjudicata. The judgment in that appeal is, in my opinion, wrong and should have been overruled, for the reasons given by me in the case of Faust v.Richland County. Both cases will yet be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 799, 118 S.C. 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/school-dist-no-19-v-marion-county-sc-1921.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack