Oswald v. Oswald
| Decision Date | 28 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 18268,18268 |
| Citation | 245 S.C. 44,138 S.E.2d 639 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mozelle C. OSWALD, Respondent, v. John S. OSWALD and Charlie Patterson, Appellants. |
Murdaugh, Eltzroth & Peters, Hampton, Tompkins, McMaster & Thomas, Columbia, Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for appellants.
McNair & Lawton, Allendale, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court fefusing a motion for a change of venue from Allendale County to Greenville County, upon the ground that 'the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.' Section 10-310(3), 1962 Code of Laws.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Mozelle C. Oswald, a resident of Allendale County, against John S. Oswald, a resident of Allendale County, and Charlie Patterson, a resident of Greenville County, as defendants, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of an automobile collision occurring in the City of Greenville, on October 28, 1962, between an automobile owned and operated by John S. Oswald and occupied by the plaintiff as a passenger, and an automobile owned and operated by Charlie Patterson.
The defendants, within due time, filed separate answers to the complaint. The defendant, Charlie Patterson, served notice of a motion to change the venue from Allendale County to Greenville County on the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by such change and also that he was a resident of Greenville County. No formal motion was made by John S. Oswald to change the venue. The motion to change the venue came on the be heard before the Honorable James Hugh McFaddin, Presiding Judge, and such motion was refused upon the ground that it had not been shown that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by a change of venue from Allendale County to Greenville County. This appeal followed.
This Court has repeatedly held that a motion for a change of venue is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the Judge who hears it and his decision will not be disturbed by this Court except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to manifest error of law. In order to prevail on a motion for a change of venue, the moving party must make a prima facie showing that both the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change and upon such showing having been made, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to overcome it as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleland v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...of witnesses. Harper v. Newark Ins. Co., 244 S.C. 282, 136 S.E.2d 711; Skinner v. Santoro, 245 S.C. 35, 138 S.E.2d 645; Oswald v. Oswald, 245 S.C. 44, 138 S.E.2d 639. The motion of the appellant for change of venue was based upon thirteen affidavits and twelve of the affiants are material w......
-
Gulledge v. Young, 18276
...error of law. See opinions recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., S.C., 138 S.E.2d 645, 1964, and Oswald v. Oswald et al., S.C., 138 S.E.2d 639, 1964. Appeal TAYLOR, C. J., and MOSS, LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., concur. ...
-
Oswald v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
...of justice would be promoted by the change.' Section 10--310(3), 1962 Code of Laws. The present action is a sequel to Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S.C. 44, 138 S.E.2d 639, which was an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff therein as a result of an automobile collision occ......
-
Livingston v. Central Refrigeration Co., Inc., 19681
...of law. See opinions recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., 245 S.C. 35, 138 S.E.2d 645, 1964; Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S.C. 44, 138 S.E.2d 639, 1964; and Gulledge v. Young, 245 S.C. 88, 138 S.E.2d 833, 1964.' Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S.C. 367, 140 S.E.2d 600. See also Ca......