Bowman v. Harby, (No. 9961.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HYDRICK |
| Citation | 96 S.E. 144 |
| Parties | BOWMAN. v. HARBY. |
| Docket Number | (No. 9961.) |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1918 |
96 S.E. 144
BOWMAN.
v.
HARBY.
(No. 9961.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 19, 1918.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.
Action by W. A. Bowman against H. J. Harby. From an order granting plaintiff new trial after verdict for him, and from order settling the case for appeal, defendant appeals, and plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal from order granting him new trial. Appeal from the order granting new trial dismissed, and order settling the case on appeal reversed, and case remanded.
John H. Clifton, Purdy & Bland, H. D. Moise, A. S. Merrimon, and M. W. Seabrook, all of Sumter, for appellant.
L. D. Jennings and Lee & Moise, all of Sumter, and D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for respondent.
HYDRICK, J. A trial of the issues in this case was had before his honor Judge Memminger and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,569.53. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on numerous grounds set out in the record. The trial judge overruled all of the grounds taken, except one, which was that the jury did not understand the issues, and were not able to analyze the testimony so as to ascertain the truth, and apply the facts to the law as declared by the court. Upon that ground, a new trial was ordered. The trial judge clearly indicates in his order granting the new trial that he was not satisfied with the verdict for the reason stated. He says "the jury did not comprehend the issues submitted to them, and so the verdict is no intelligent or intelligible solution of the controversy." The defendant appealed from Unorder granting a new trial, and plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, because the order is not appealable.
It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely upon a question of law, but involved a consideration of the facts and the conduct of the trial. Therefore the motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted, and it is so ordered.
But defendant appealed also from the order of the trial judge settling the case for appeal, which required him to print the entire record, in the trial of the case in the. circuit court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. Bailey, No. 17742
...both questions of law and fact, it is not appealable. This last statement is supported by the decisions in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, and Sellars v. Collins et al., 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d It appears from the record that Mildred L. Fuller, the respondent's intestate, was thi......
-
Nichols v. Craven, No. 16791
...not arise, we cannot interfere.' In dismissing an appeal from an Order granting a new trial, the Court in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, said: 'It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely up......
-
Sellars v. Collins, No. 16037.
...not arise, we cannot interfere." In dismissing an appeal from an order granting a new trial, the Court in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, said: "It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely up......
-
Turner v. Carey, No. 16758
...not arise, we cannot interfere.' In dismissing an appeal from an Order granting a new trial, the Court in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, said: 'It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely up......
-
Fuller v. Bailey, No. 17742
...both questions of law and fact, it is not appealable. This last statement is supported by the decisions in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, and Sellars v. Collins et al., 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d It appears from the record that Mildred L. Fuller, the respondent's intestate, was thi......
-
Nichols v. Craven, No. 16791
...not arise, we cannot interfere.' In dismissing an appeal from an Order granting a new trial, the Court in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, said: 'It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely up......
-
Sellars v. Collins, No. 16037.
...not arise, we cannot interfere." In dismissing an appeal from an order granting a new trial, the Court in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, said: "It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely up......
-
Turner v. Carey, No. 16758
...not arise, we cannot interfere.' In dismissing an appeal from an Order granting a new trial, the Court in Bowman v. Harby, 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144, said: 'It is too plain for discussion that, under our decisions, the order is not appealable, because the new trial was not granted solely up......