Byrd v. Small

Decision Date28 February 1870
Citation2 S.C. 388
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJONAS BYRD AND OTHERS v. THOMAS R. SMALL.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

An appeal does not lie from an order of the Circuit Judge granting a new trial for error of fact in the verdict of a jury.

Before an appeal from such an order will be entertained, it must be apparent that some question of law was involved which influenced the decision of the Judge.

BEFORE CARPENTER, J., AT CHARLESTON, FEBRUARY TERM, 1870.

This was an action of trespass to try title, commenced in June, 1869.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant moved for a new trial on the Judge's minutes, on the grounds: “1. That the verdict is against evidence. 2. That the verdict is against law.”

His Honor granted the motion, and made an order as follows:

“Ordered that the verdict be set aside, and a new trial granted.”

The plaintiffs appealed, and stipulated that, if the order be affirmed, judgment absolute should be rendered against the plaintiffs, and in favor of the defendant.

Chamberlain & Seabrook, for appellants.

Corbin, contra.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

WRIGHT, A. J.

In this case a verdict having been rendered for the plaintiffs, a motion was made, on the part of the defendant, to set it aside, on the ground that “it was contrary to law, as stated in the charge of the Judge, and contrary to the evidence.”

The Circuit Judge “ordered that the verdict be set aside, and a new trial granted,” from which order the plaintiff has appealed.

By the 288th Section of Chapter III of the Code, p. 485, the Circuit Judge, before whom a cause has been tried, may entertain a motion “to set aside a verdict, and grant a new trial, upon exceptions, or for insufficient evidence, or for excessive damages.” The authority so conferred is without limit or restraint; but his judgment is subject to the correction of this Court when his order granting or refusing a new trial involves a question of law. The decrees of all Courts of final jurisdiction are, of course, conclusive.

Where they may take cognizance of questions of fact, as well as of law, and both arise in the same case, if they find error either on the part of the Judge, or the jury, the result must be a new trial. If the question before them is confined to one of fact, the motion must turn upon the view which they take of the evidence, and in this regard they must be governed by their own sound legal discretion. Under the organization of the Courts of this State,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Morrison v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 1, 1936
    ... ... interfere." ...           ... Citing Miller v. Schuyler, 20 N.Y. 522; Byrd et ... al. v. Small, 2 S.C. 388 ...          It is ... the argument of appellant's counsel that the motion for ... new trial was made ... ...
  • Southern Power Co v. White
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1912
    ...only in equity cases, and its power in law cases is limited to the correction of errors of law. State v. Bailey, 1 S. C. 1; Byrd v. Small, 2 S. C. 388; State v. David, 14 S. C. 430. A consideration of the provisions of the condemnation act, as it now appears in section 2191, above quoted, i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT