Outlaw v. Nat'l Council, (No. 9393.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 801 |
| Parties | OUTLAW. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS, et al. |
| Docket Number | (No. 9393.) |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1916 |
OUTLAW.
v.
NATIONAL COUNCIL, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS, et al.
(No. 9393.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 24, 1916.
[88 S.E. 801]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; I. W. Bowman, Judge.
Action by Eunice Outlaw against the National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics, and De Kalb Council, No. 112, Junior Order United American Mechanics. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants served notice of intention to appeal. On motion to dismiss appeal from an order refusing to approve defendants' proposed case and extending time for settlement. Case remanded to trial court for settlement,
B. B. Clarke, of Camden, and Douglas & Douglas, of Winnsboro, for appellants.
W. B. De Loach, of Camden, for respondent.
PER CURIAM. [1] The order extending the time within which to perfect the appeal was within the discretion of the trial judge, and not appealable at this time.
Inasmuch as there is some confusion in the minds of attorneys as to the proper practice in the preparation of appeals, it is well to say: The appellant serves his proposed case, making a narrative statement of so much of the testimony as may be pertinent to the appeal, where it can be done. If the respondent objects to appellant's statement, he can propose amendments thereto, inserting or striking out, or he may propose by way of amendment a statement in accordance with his view of the testimony. In case of a failure of the appellant and the respondent to agree, the case must then be referred to the trial judge for settlement. It is not sufficient for respondent to object to appellant's statement of the testimony of any witness or witnesses, and propose that in lieu thereof the entire testimony be inserted. Respondent must serve the proposed amendments, which should specify what he proposes to strike out or insert in accordance with the rule. The statute (Code, § 315) provides that the presiding judge may require the stenographer to furnish him with a transcript of the testimony.
The case is remanded to the circuit judge for settlement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodworth v. Skeen, (No. 12782.)
...are not detailed. The motion should have been granted, and the order refusing it is reversed. See Edgefield v. Power Co., 104 S. C. 311, 88 S. E. 801; Scott v. R. Co., 67 S. C. 136, 45 S. E. 129; Bank of Saluda v. Feaster, 87 S. C. 97, 68 S. E. 1045; Williams v. Carlson, 118 S. C. 46, 110 S......
-
Outlaw v. Nat'l Council, (No. 9679.)
...United American Mechanics, and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant named appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 104 S. C. 331, 88 S. E. 801. Douglas & Douglas, of Winnsboro, and B. B. Clarke, of Camden, for appellant. W. B. De Loach, of Camden, for respondent. WATTS, J. This was an......
-
Outlaw v. National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics, 9393.
...88 S.E. 801 104 S.C. 331 OUTLAW v. NATIONAL COUNCIL, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS, ET AL. No. 9393.Supreme Court of South CarolinaMay 24, Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; I. W. Bowman, Judge. Action by Eunice Outlaw against the National Council, Junior Ord......
-
Woodworth v. Skeen, (No. 12782.)
...are not detailed. The motion should have been granted, and the order refusing it is reversed. See Edgefield v. Power Co., 104 S. C. 311, 88 S. E. 801; Scott v. R. Co., 67 S. C. 136, 45 S. E. 129; Bank of Saluda v. Feaster, 87 S. C. 97, 68 S. E. 1045; Williams v. Carlson, 118 S. C. 46, 110 S......
-
Outlaw v. Nat'l Council, (No. 9679.)
...United American Mechanics, and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant named appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 104 S. C. 331, 88 S. E. 801. Douglas & Douglas, of Winnsboro, and B. B. Clarke, of Camden, for appellant. W. B. De Loach, of Camden, for respondent. WATTS, J. This was an......
-
Outlaw v. National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics, 9393.
...88 S.E. 801 104 S.C. 331 OUTLAW v. NATIONAL COUNCIL, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS, ET AL. No. 9393.Supreme Court of South CarolinaMay 24, Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; I. W. Bowman, Judge. Action by Eunice Outlaw against the National Council, Junior Ord......