Redfearn v. Douglass

• Decision Date: 24 March 1892
• Citation: 35 S.C. 569,15 S.E. 244
• Parties: Redfearn v. Douglass et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

15 S.E. 244

35 S.C. 569

Redfearn

v.Douglass et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 24, 1892.

Review on Appeal—Powers op Circuit Court.

1. Code Proc. § 868, subd. 6, relating to appeals to the circuit court from an inferior court, provides that the provisions of the Code of Procedure relative to decisions of the court and motions for new trial are applicable to all appeals "brought up for trial as in this chapter provided. " Code Proo. § 368, subd. 1, provides that the circuit court shall have power to affirm or reverse "judgments" of the inferior courts "for errors of law or fact." Held, that the circuit court has power to review errors of fact in an order of a trial judge granting a new trial, the-Code making provision for appeals from orders granting or refusing new trials, and the word "judgment, " in section 368, not being used in its technical sense of a final determination.

2. The supreme court has no power to review errors of fact in the circuit court; Const, art. 4, § 4, providing that the supreme court shall constitute "a court for the correction of errors at law."

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Chesterfield county; Hudson, Judge.

Action by K. N. Redfearn against D. B. Douglass and Hilton Sellers. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. F. Stevenson, for appellants.

R. T. Canton, for respondent.

McIver, C. J. This was an action of claim and delivery to recover possession of an ox, originally instituted in the trial justice court, and carried thence, by appeal, to the court of common pleas. In the trial justice court a jury seems to have been demanded, who rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendants moved for a new trial, which was granted, "the trial justice taking a different view of the facts of the case from that of the jury." From the order of the trial justice granting anew trial the plain-tiff appealed to the court of common pleas, and the circuit judge, holding "that, the trial justice having granted motion for a new trial because he took a different view of the testimony from that taken by the jury, the plaintiff should not be put to the expense and trouble of a new trial to recover property which appeared from the testimony to be clearly his, and that the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence, " granted an order setting aside the order of the trial justice, and making the verdict of the jury the judgment of the court. From this judgment defendants appeal, upon the several grounds set out in the record. All of these grounds except the third raise questions of fact, which we have no jurisdiction to consider. That ground, substantially, imputes error to the circuit judge in setting aside an order of a trial justice granting a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conclusion reached by the jury. It will be observed that the circuit judge set aside the order of the trial justice, not upon the ground of error of law therein, but solely upon the ground of error of fact; and therefore, unless it can be shown that the circuit court has no power to review and reverse the decision of a trial justice for errors of fact, this court, clearly, has no jurisdiction to review any conclusions of fact reached by the circuit court in a law case, such as this is. Has, then, the circuit court power to review errors of fact in the inferior court? While this court is limited by section 4¹ of article 4 of the constitution to the correction of errors of law in a law case, as it has...