Grant v. Clinton Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 14 March 1900
• Citation: 35 S.E. 193,56 S.C. 554
• Parties: GRANT v. CLINTON COTTON MILLS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

35 S.E. 193

56 S.C. 554

GRANT v. CLINTON COTTON MILLS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 14, 1900

Appeal from common pleas circuit court, Laurens county; R. C. Watts Judge.

Action by Arthur Grant against the Clinton Cotton Mills. From an order dismissing an appeal and affirming a judgment of a magistrate in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. P McGowan, for appellant.

Irby Cooper & Babb, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

This was an action commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant before a magistrate to recover the sum of $5.07 alleged to be due him for his wages as a weaver in said mills. The summons bears date the 16th of May, 1899, and was directed to "M. S. Bailey; President Clinton Cotton Mills," requiring him to appear before the magistrate at his office at Laurens, S. C., within six days from the service of the summons, exclusive of the day of service, to answer to the plaintiff's complaint, or judgment will be given by default. The next paper which appears in the case is a notice, without date (notwithstanding the frequent admonitions from this court to the bar as to the necessity of dating their papers), addressed to the plaintiff's attorneys, informing them that on the 22d of May, 1899, the defendant would move before the magistrate, at his office in the city of Laurens, to set aside the summons and all records in the case, "for want of jurisdiction, in that (1) the said summons required the defendant to appear and answer within five days; (2) that it did not state the day of trial; (3) the summons is void for uncertainty." This motion was heard by the magistrate on the 22d of May, 1899, and after argument was refused. On the next day judgment was entered by the magistrate in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed, together with the costs, in which the recitals are that the summons had been served on the defendant more than five days before the same was rendered, and no answer or demurrer had been served, and that plaintiff had duly proved his claim. From this judgment defendant appealed to the circuit court, substantially upon the same grounds as those taken in support of the motion above referred to. From the report of the magistrate it appears that the defendant made a special appearance before the magistrate "for the purpose only of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, and to the uncertainty of the time in which the defendant was required to answer," and that, when the motion to set aside the proceedings was refused, the defendant declined to answer, and judgment was rendered as above stated. This appeal was heard by the circuit court, and after arguments of counsel the circuit judge, in a short order, not setting forth any reasons, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgment of the magistrate. From this action of the circuit court the defendant appealed to this court upon substantially the same grounds, and also upon the following ground, which does not appear to have been previously taken, viz.: "Because his honor should have reversed the judgment of the magistrate, in that the summons was directed to M. S. Bailey, upon an alleged cause of action against him." The questions made by...