Solley v. Weaver
| Decision Date | 03 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 18441,18441 |
| Citation | 146 S.E.2d 164,247 S.C. 129 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Larry John SOLLEY, Jr., by his Guardian Ad Litem, Appellant, v. Eunice Edna WEAVER, Respondent. |
Patrick J. Doyle, Rosen & Rosen, Georgetown, for appellant.
McCaskill & Thompson, Conway, for respondent.
This is an action brought by Larry John Solley, Jr., through his guardian ad litem, the appellant herein, against Eunice Edna Weaver, the respondent herein, to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained on December 8, 1963, as a result of an automobile collision in the City of Georgetown, South Carolina. It is alleged that the injuries to the said appellant were caused by the negligent, careless, reckless, willful and wanton manner in which the respondent operated her automobile. At the conclusion of the testimony in behalf of the appellant, the Trial Judge granted a nonsuit on the ground that there was no proof of any act of negligence on the part of the respondent which operated as a proximate cause of the injuries to the appellant. This is an appeal from the order of the Trial Judge.
The sole exception, as stated by the appellant, is that:
'The Court erred in granting Defendant's Motion for nonsuit because there was more than one reasonable inference properly deducible from the testimony of negligence on the part of the Defendant.'
Under the rules of this Court, the appeal herein must be dismissed. The foregoing exception is entirely too general, vague and indefinite to be considered. It does not comply with Rule 4, Section 6, of this Court, which provides:
We have held in many cases that every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the Court may at once see the point which it is called upon to decide without having to 'grope in the dark' to ascertain the precise point at issue. The object of an exception is to present some distinct principle or question of law which the appellant claims to have been violated by the Court in the trial of the case from which the appeal is taken, and to present it in such form that it may be properly reviewed. Hewitt v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 235 S.C. 201, 110 S.E.2d 852; Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. McElmurray, 236 S.C. 141, 113 S.E.2d 756.
It has been held that an exception requiring a review of all the evidence is too general to be considered. Marshall v. Creel, 44 S.C. 484, 22 S.E. 597; Weatherly v. Covington, 51 S.C. 55, 28...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. McLeod v. C & L Corp., Inc.
...put the court and opposing parties on notice as to what evidence is claimed to be irrelevant and immaterial and why. Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). However, the Attorney General did not specifically object to Exception No. 2, choosing instead to lodge a blanket objec......
-
State v. Dingle
...198, 130 S.E.2d 473 (1963), we held that vague and general exceptions raise no issue reviewable by this Court. In Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966), we We have held in many cases that every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the Court may at once see ......
-
Eagles v. South Carolina Nat. Bank
...V. We do not address SCNB's Exception No. 5. The exception is obviously too general. S.C.SUP.CT.R. 4, § 6; see Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966) (a ground of appeal should be so distinctly stated that an appellate court may at once see the point it is called upon to deci......
-
Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of South Carolina
...appellate court is left to "grope in the dark", searching the entire record to ascertain the issue being raised. See Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). We have held that the Court of Appeals may not decide an issue neither presented to the circuit court nor raised by pro......