Grooms v. Zander, 18410

• Decision Date: 14 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. 18410,18410
• Citation: 144 S.E.2d 909,246 S.C. 512
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Helen J. GROOMS, as Administratrix for the Estate of Verne Carol Gilchrist, Appellant, v. Angie J. ZANDER, as Administratrix for the Estate of Charles Henry Zander, Jr., Respondent.

Page 909

144 S.E.2d 909

246 S.C. 512

Helen J. GROOMS, as Administratrix for the Estate of Verne Carol Gilchrist, Appellant, v. Angie J. ZANDER, as Administratrix for the Estate of Charles Henry Zander, Jr., Respondent.

No. 18410.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 14, 1965.

A. Arthur Rosenblum, Charleston, for appellant.

William H. Grimball, Jr., Coming B. Gibbs, Sr., Charleston, for respondent.

BRAILSFORD, Justice.

In this action for the wrongful death of Verne Carol Gilchrist the trial judge declared a mistrial and discharged the jury because of the failure of the jurors to agree upon a verdict. Thereafter, he issued an order undertaking to 'direct a verdict' for the defendant and dismissing the action. The plaintiff has appealed and by her first exception challenges the jurisdiction of the court to issue such an order after the trial had terminated. The question is novel in this jurisdiction and no helpful precedent has been cited. The following excerpt from the statement of the case furnishes the factual basis for decision:

'The defendant made timely motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict, and the Trial Judge withheld his rulings as to both of these motions when they were made. He submitted the case to the jury and when they failed to reach a verdict he declared a mistrial and discharged them. Before the Court recessed at the conclusion of the trial the attorney for the defendant requested the Court to preserve his rights under the motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict. The Court agreed that this would be done, and he later heard the motion for a directed verdict and granted the motion.'

A mistrial is the equivalent of no trial and leaves the cause pending in the circuit court. When the trial of this case was thus terminated, the status of the litigation and of the parties became the same as though no trial had taken place. Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 50 S.E.2d 704; 27 Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, p. 620.

Circuit Court Rule 79 authorizes a post trial motion for judgment non obstante veredicto only when a motion for a directed verdict has been made at the trial and a verdict has been returned against the movant. In this situation, something remains to be done in the circuit court after the completion of the trial; i. e., the entry of judgment on the verdict. A motion under the rule invokes the jurisdiction conferred upon the judge to review his decision on the previous motion and, if convinced that a verdict should have been directed, to order judgment entered in favor of the movant; if not so convinced, to deny the motion and authorize entry of judgment on the verdict. In...