Skinner v. Santoro
| Decision Date | 27 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 18265,18265 |
| Citation | 138 S.E.2d 645,245 S.C. 35 |
| Parties | Robert W. SKINNER, Appellant, v. Onofrio William SANTORO and V. B. Hook Vacuum and Cooling Company, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
James P. Mozingo, III, D. Kenneth Baker, Darlington, for appellant.
Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court refusing a motion by the plaintiff for a change of venue from Richland County to Darlington 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 action was brought by the plaintiff, a resident of Darlington County, against the defendants, residents of Richland County, to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage sustained by the plaintiff as a result of a collision between an automobile driven by the plaintiff and a truck owned by V. B. Hook Vacuum and Cooling Company, a corporation, and operated by one Santoro, an agent, employee and servant of the corporate defendant. The collision occurred at the intersection of U. S. Highway 76 and U. S. Highway 76 By-Pass in Sumter County.
This Court has repeatedly held that a motion for a change of venue § 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 at least one of these requirements. This Court has also held that the promotion of the ends of justice is served by having a jury of the vicinage pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Harper v. Newark Ins. Co., 244 S.C. 282, 136 S.E.2d 711.
We have also held that the right of a defendant in a civil action to a trial in the county of his residence, pursuant to statute, is a substantial one and such right is sometimes described as a valuable right not to be lightly denied. McMillan v. B. L. Montague Co., 238 S.C. 512, 121 S.E.2d 13. While the right of a defendant in a civil action to a trial in the county of its residence is a substantial one, it is within the sound discretion of the hearing judge to change the place of trial where it is shown that both the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted. Basha v. Waccamaw Lumber & Supply Company, 240 S.C. 140, 124 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKissick v. J.F. Cleckley & Co.
...and the ends of justice would be served. Arledge v. Colonial Oil Indus., Inc., 272 S.C. 88, 249 S.E.2d 740 (1978); Skinner v. Santoro, 245 S.C. 35, 138 S.E.2d 645 (1964). We will not disturb the trial judge's decision on appeal unless we find a manifest abuse of discretion resulting in an e......
-
Cleland v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...a jury of the vicinage pass upon the credibility 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 The motion of the appellant for change of venue was based upon thirteen affidavi......
-
Gulledge v. Young, 18276
...clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to manifest 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, Appeal dismissed. TAYLOR, C. J., and MOSS, LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSF......
-
Oswald v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
...not be disturbed by this Court except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to manifest error of law. Skinner v. Santoro et al., 245 S.C. 35, 138 S.E.2d 645; Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S.C. 44, 138 S.E.2d 639; Gulledge v. Young et al., 245 S.C. 88, 138 S.E.2d We have also ......