McCullough v. McCullough
Decision Date | 12 March 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 18038,18038 |
Citation | 242 S.C. 108,130 S.E.2d 77 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Audrey J. McCULLOUGH, Appellant, v. William B. McCULLOUGH, Respondent. |
Audrey J. McCullough, in pro. per.
Francis C. Jones, Lexington, for respondent.
This is an appeal, in forma pauperis, from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Lexington County, the appellant appearing in propria persona.
Appellant instituted in said court an action wherein she sought support for herself and the two minor children of the parties on the ground of desertion and failure to support by the respondent. A consent order was entered providing substantial support for appellant and the children, and some months later, the respondent petitioned the said court for a reduction of the support payments on an alleged change of financial conditions, which reduction was granted. The court, however, allowed an audit to be made of the financial affairs of the respondent. Following this audit and based thereon, appellant petitioned the court to reinstate the original amount of support, and from an order denying this request comes this appeal.
It is neither necessary nor proper for this court to pass upon the exceptions upon which this appeal is based, since the appeal is not properly before this court.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Lexington County is an inferior court of limited jurisdiction, established by the legislature pursuant to Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution. 1962 Code Sections 15-1311 et seq.
The only provision for appeal from the decisions of this court is contained in Section 15-1311.30, in the following language:
'Any party to a proceeding may appeal from any order or decree of the court to the circuit court in the manner now provided for appeal to the circuit court from other inferior courts.'
The right of appeal is a matter of grace and is not an inherent or vested right. Turner v. Joseph Walker School District No. 9, 215 S.C. 472, 56 S.E.2d 243; Horn v. Blackwell, 212 S.C. 480, 48 S.E.2d 322. The rules of court and statutes must be followed in perfecting an appeal. Camden Investment Company v. Gibson, 204 S.C. 513, 30 S.E.2d 305.
No question is raised by either of the parties with respect to the appeal being taken to this court, rather than the court of common pleas, and no question is raised by either of the parties as to the jurisdiction of the court below. Applicable to the case before us, however, is the following language from the case of American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Thomas, 206 S.C. 355, 34 S.E.2d 592, 160 A.L.R. 594.
'It was held in Hunter v. Boyd, 203 S.C. 518, 28 S.E.2d 412, that since lack of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action cannot be waived even by consent, lack of jurisdiction can be and should be taken notice of by the Supreme Court ex mero motu.' See also Williamson v. Richards, 158 S.C. 534, 155 S.E. 890.
It appearing to us that the court below had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action, we consider it our duty in the interest of justice to raise the question ex mero motu.
'The extent of the jurisdiction of a court ordinarily is to be determined by the provisions of the organic law or by such statutory provisions as may be properly enacted thereunder. * * *
14 Am.Jur. 369, Courts, Section 169.
In the case of Brown v. Wood, 1 Bailey 457, with respect to the jurisdiction of courts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Columbia v. South Carolina Public Service Commission
...Hunter v. Boyd, 203 S.C. 518, 28 S.E.2d 412; see Goggans v. State Board of Education, 133 S.C. 183, 130 S.E. 645; and McCullough v. McCullough, S.C., 130 S.E.2d 77. In determining whether the Richland County Court had jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari in this case, reference must......
-
McGlohon v. Harlan
...has the jurisdiction to determine the disputed paternity of an illegitimate child. In the fairly recent case of McCullough v. McCullough, 242 S.C. 108, 130 S.E.2d 77 (1963), we quoted with approval the following from 14 Am.Jur. 369, Courts, Section 169: 'Courts created by statute and not by......
-
Foster v. Nordman
...two cases as we have determined ex mero motu that the Court below had no jurisdiction of the parties to this action. McCullough v. McCullough, 242 S.C. 108, 130 S.E.2d 77. 'A court of competent jurisdiction is one having power and authority of law at the time of acting to do a particular ac......
-
Cushing v. Cushing, 95
...involved is an inferior court of very limited jurisdiction. On March 12, 1963, the Supreme Court of South Carolina in McCullough v. McCullough, 242 S.C. 108, 130 S.E.2d 77, held that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Lexington County was without jurisdiction in an action institut......