Able v. Young
Decision Date | 04 October 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 19495,19495 |
Citation | 191 S.E.2d 781,259 S.C. 362 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Patricia Lynn ABLE, Respondent, v. Jesse YOUNG, Appellant. |
Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellant.
Luther M. Lee, Columbia, for respondent.
This case arose out of a collision between automobiles at an intersection in the City of Columbia. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the trial judge granted a new trial, quoting from the order, The defendant has appealed.
It is settled by our decisions that an order for a new trial based upon a consideration of he evidence by the trial judge, and a conclusion therefrom contrary to that of the jury, is not appealable. Strickland v. Prince, 247 S.C. 497, 148 S.E.2d 161 (1966); Robinson v. Fuller, 249 S.C. 342, 154 S.E.2d 431 (1967); Rowe v. Frick, 250 S.C. 499, 159 S.E.2d 47 (1968); Sellers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 252 S.C. 271, 166 S.E.2d 1 (1969); Taylor v. Devore, 253 S.C. 393, 171 S.E.2d 158 (1969).
Able counsel for defendant argue that the rule does not apply because it appears upon the face of the order that it was based upon an incomplete resume of the testimony, including some irrelevant facts. While the order is, in part, ineptly drawn, it clearly appears therefrom that relief was granted in the exercise of the court's authority and responsibility to grant a new trial when the jury's verdict is, in his judgment, contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence. Under the decisions cited, and myriad others to be found in 3 West's South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, k110 (1952), such an order is not appealable.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp. v. Mooneyham
...application of the appellant, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8, § 10, to argue against decisions found in the cases of Able v. Young, 259 S.C. 362, 191 S.E.2d 781 (1972), and South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Clarkson, 267 S.C. 121, 226 S.E.2d 696 (1976), wherein it is stated that an or......
-
South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Clarkson
...court was inadequate because it did not contain a review of the evidence relied upon, is without merit. We so held in Able v. Young, 259 S.C. 362, 191 S.E.2d 781. Judgment RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur. LITTLEJOHN and NESS, JJ., dissent. LITTLEJOHN and NESS, Justices (dissenting): We resp......