Agnew v. Adams
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 24 S.C. 86 |
| Parties | AGNEW v. ADAMS. |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1885 |
24 S.C. 86
AGNEW
v.
ADAMS.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 14, 1885.
1. A ruling of the Circuit Judge that the defendant is properly in court may be appealed from before final judgment.
2. A refusal to grant a motion for non-suit is a mere ruling and not appealable until after final judgment.
3. Appeal dismissed, the return not having been filed within the time prescribed by Rule II.
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal, upon the ground that the return had not been filed within the time prescribed, and upon the other ground stated in the opinion.
Messrs. Bachman & Youmans, for the motion.
Mr. A. C. Moore, contra.
[24 S.C. 87]
The opinion of the court was delivered
PER CURIAM.In this case a motion is made to dismiss the appeal upon two grounds, 1st. Because the matters appealed from are not appealable. 2d. Because appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of rule II. of this court.
For a proper understanding of the point made by the first ground upon which the motion is based, it will be necessary to make a brief statement of the facts. The action in this case was brought originally against Robert Adams, and he having died during its pendency, an order was granted by Judge Hudson, within a year, continuing the action against Eveline Adams, as administratrix of said Robert Adams. Thereupon a notice was served upon said Eveline Adams, together with copies of the original summons and complaint, of the order of Judge Hudson, and that the plaintiff would apply for judgment against her as administratrix as aforesaid. At the trial, the counsel for defendant contended that the action could not be maintained in the then state of the pleadings, inasmuch as, though there was an order authorizing the continuance of the action against the administratrix, yet the proper steps had not been taken to make her a party, inasmuch as no amended or supplemental complaint had been filed, or amended summons served upon her. The Circuit Judge ruled otherwise and the defendant excepted.
At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant moved for a non-suit on several grounds, which it is not material to set out here. The defendant then introduced her testimony, and the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, which, upon motion of plaintiff's counsel, was set aside and a new trial ordered by the Circuit Judge. The defendant appeals, substantially upon two grounds. 1st. For error on the part of the Circuit Judge in holding that the action was properly continued against her as administratrix. 2d. For error in refusing her motion for non-suit.
It will be observed that the only question which we are now called upon to decide is, not whether there is merit in the grounds of appeal, but whether the matters complained of are appealable. The first matter complained of presents the important question, vital to the jurisdiction of the court, whether the defendant has
[24 S.C. 88]
been made a party to the action in the manner prescribed by law, and we are not prepared to say that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, No. 15236.
...refusal of such motions cannot be had until after final judgment, so the exceptions raising these questions are overruled. Ag-new v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86; Bryson v. Railway Co, 35 S.C. 608, 14 S.E. 630; Barker v. Thomas, 85 S.C. 82, 67 S.E. 1; Floyd v. Page, 124 S.C. 400, 117 S.E. 409; Parham-......
-
Allen v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co., No. 16306
...8 Cir., 149 F. 354, 9 Ann.Cas. 628, trial might be disrupted unnecessarily and litigation extended improperly. See, also, Agnew v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86. [216 S.C. 200] Reverting to the North Carolina decision of Hoss v. Palmer, the plaintiff there omitted from his complaint allegations for the......
-
Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., MID-STATE
...the appealability statute was in its infancy. 3 In National Exchange Bank v. Stelling, 32 S.C. 102, 10 S.E. 766 (1890), and Agnew v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86 (1885), an order finding that a defendant was properly made a party could be appealed prior to a final Page 780 judgment. During this same t......
-
Keels v. Powell Et At, No. 16153.
...a nonsuit, or the direction of a verdict, is not appealable until after final judgment. The reasons are fully stated in Agnew v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86. This ruling is recognized in Barker v. Thomas, 85 S.C. 82, 67 S.E. 1; Woods v. [Rock Hill] Fertilizer Co., 102 S.C. 442, 86 S.E. 817, [Ann.Cas.......
-
Hayes v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, No. 15236.
...refusal of such motions cannot be had until after final judgment, so the exceptions raising these questions are overruled. Ag-new v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86; Bryson v. Railway Co, 35 S.C. 608, 14 S.E. 630; Barker v. Thomas, 85 S.C. 82, 67 S.E. 1; Floyd v. Page, 124 S.C. 400, 117 S.E. 409; Parham-......
-
Allen v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co., No. 16306
...8 Cir., 149 F. 354, 9 Ann.Cas. 628, trial might be disrupted unnecessarily and litigation extended improperly. See, also, Agnew v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86. [216 S.C. 200] Reverting to the North Carolina decision of Hoss v. Palmer, the plaintiff there omitted from his complaint allegations for the......
-
Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., MID-STATE
...the appealability statute was in its infancy. 3 In National Exchange Bank v. Stelling, 32 S.C. 102, 10 S.E. 766 (1890), and Agnew v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86 (1885), an order finding that a defendant was properly made a party could be appealed prior to a final Page 780 judgment. During this same t......
-
Keels v. Powell Et At, No. 16153.
...a nonsuit, or the direction of a verdict, is not appealable until after final judgment. The reasons are fully stated in Agnew v. Adams, 24 S.C. 86. This ruling is recognized in Barker v. Thomas, 85 S.C. 82, 67 S.E. 1; Woods v. [Rock Hill] Fertilizer Co., 102 S.C. 442, 86 S.E. 817, [Ann.Cas.......