Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, NEHI-ROYAL
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | STUKES |
| Citation | 90 S.E.2d 489,228 S.C. 412 |
| Parties | ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY, Inc., of Anderson, S. C., et al., Appellants, v. William E. CHANDLER et al., Respondents.CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY, Inc., of Spartanburg, S. C., et al., Appellants, v. William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents. T. S. HARTNESS and Sara J. Hartness, Partners, doing business as Pepsi-Cola 7-Up Bottling Company, Appellants, v. William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents. O. W. HARTNESS and George Hartness, doing business as 7-Up Bottling Company of West Columbia, S. C., Appellants, v. William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents. HARTNESS BOTTLING WORKS, Appellant, v. William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents. Henry H. EDENS, Respondent, v. Sam M. LATTO et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17086,NEHI-ROYAL |
Page 489
al., Appellants,
v.
William E. CHANDLER et al., Respondents.
NEHI-ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY, Inc., of Spartanburg, S.
C., et al., Appellants,
v.
William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents.
T. S. HARTNESS and Sara J. Hartness, Partners, doing
business as Pepsi-Cola 7-Up Bottling Company, Appellants,
v.
William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents.
O. W. HARTNESS and George Hartness, doing business as 7-Up
Bottling Company of West Columbia, S. C., Appellants,
v.
William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents.
HARTNESS BOTTLING WORKS, Appellant,
v.
William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Respondents.
Henry H. EDENS, Respondent,
v.
Sam M. LATTO et al., Appellants.
Page 490
[228 S.C. 414] Price & Poag, Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellants.
E. P. Riley, Greenville, Henry Hammer, Columbia, for respondents.
STUKES, Justice.
The first five of the above stated actions were instituted in Greenville County and the last stated in Richland. They were consolidated by consent and tried in Greenville County. The decision of them was reversed upon appeal to this court. 226 S.C. 94, 83 S.E.2d 745. The bottler-plaintiffs are residents of various counties and the respondent Edens was at the time of the commencement of the actions, and is, a resident of the City of Columbia, Richland County. The venue of the five actions against him and others in Greenville was maintained by reason of the residence there of co-defendant Chandler.
Reference to the above cited decision of the former appeal shows that it was adjudicated that Chandler has no claim against the bottlers and he is no longer interested except, [228 S.C. 415] quoting, 'as he may participate in the fee which may be recovered by Edens, who is the principal appellant; and this action is not concerned with the division.' The mandate of the decision was that the judgment then under appeal was reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for the fixing of a reasonable fee which will be awarded to Mr. Edens, and for an accounting as recommended by the special referee.
Upon remand the present respondent, Edens, moved for a hearing in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County, but, upon showing by the present appellants, the resident judge disqualified himself. Thereafter Mr. Edens moved for change of venue to Richland County, his residence at the time of the commencement of the actions and now, upon that ground and that he is the 'only real defendant.' The motion was heard and granted by another Circuit Judge who was presiding over the Greenville Court of Common Pleas. This appeal is from his order which simply refused to set a date for the hearing of the cases and transferred them to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County.
The argument of appellants is that the respondent was estopped from making the motion to transfer the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillan v. B. L. Montague Co., No. 17804
...right is sometimes described as a valuable right not to be lightly denied, Royal Crown Bottling Company, Inc. et al. v. Chandler et al., 228 S.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d 489; Fordham v. Fordham, 223 S.C. 401, 76 [238 S.C. 518] S.E.2d 299; Wingard v. Sims, 222 S.C. 396, 73 S.E.2d 279; and such right ......
-
Nelson v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., No. 17306
...203 S.C. 263, 17 S.E.2d 230; Holly Hill Lumber Co., Inc., v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 43 S.E.2d 143; Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d Although we granted appellant's counsel permission to argue against that portion of our previous opinion in which we held that the m......
-
Kelly v. Rachels, Appellate Case No. 2017-000049
...of the [s]upreme [c]ourt, it should have been corrected by means of a petition for re[]hearing."); Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 415, 90 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1955) (finding it would be improper to consider arguments against an opinion's propriety on a second appeal when th......
-
Kelly v. Rachels, 2019-UP-283
...of the [s]upreme [c]ourt, it should have been corrected by means of a petition for re[]hearing."); Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 415, 90 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1955) (finding it would be improper to consider arguments against an opinion's propriety on a second appeal when th......
-
McMillan v. B. L. Montague Co., No. 17804
...right is sometimes described as a valuable right not to be lightly denied, Royal Crown Bottling Company, Inc. et al. v. Chandler et al., 228 S.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d 489; Fordham v. Fordham, 223 S.C. 401, 76 [238 S.C. 518] S.E.2d 299; Wingard v. Sims, 222 S.C. 396, 73 S.E.2d 279; and such right ......
-
Nelson v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., No. 17306
...203 S.C. 263, 17 S.E.2d 230; Holly Hill Lumber Co., Inc., v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 43 S.E.2d 143; Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d Although we granted appellant's counsel permission to argue against that portion of our previous opinion in which we held that the m......
-
Kelly v. Rachels, Appellate Case No. 2017-000049
...of the [s]upreme [c]ourt, it should have been corrected by means of a petition for re[]hearing."); Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 415, 90 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1955) (finding it would be improper to consider arguments against an opinion's propriety on a second appeal when th......
-
Kelly v. Rachels, 2019-UP-283
...of the [s]upreme [c]ourt, it should have been corrected by means of a petition for re[]hearing."); Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 415, 90 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1955) (finding it would be improper to consider arguments against an opinion's propriety on a second appeal when th......