Sprouse v. Littlejohn

• Decision Date: 17 March 1885
• Citation: 22 S.C. 358
• Parties: SPROUSE v. LITTLEJOHN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

22 S.C. 358

SPROUSE v. LITTLEJOHN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 17, 1885

1. An order of the Circuit judge on appeal fro a trial justice directing a new trial in the court below, cannot be declared erroneous where this court is not informed of the grounds upon which the order was granted.

2. A gift of personal property is not complete without delivery but where declarations of the donor to the effect that he had given are received in evidence as competent, it should be left to the jury to determine whether the gift has been proved.

Before PRESSLEY, J., Spartanburg, October, 1884.

The opinion states the case.

Mr. Stanyarne Wilson , for appellant.

Mr. J. S. R. Thomson , contra.

OPINION

MR CHIEF JUSTICE SIMPSON.

This action was originally brought in a trial justice court for Spartanburg County for damages for the taking and detaining by W. G. Bryant, the defendant's intestate, of a cow, the alleged property of Texana Sprouse, of whom the plaintiff is guardian ad litem . The case was heard in the trial justice court by a jury duly impannelled and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff for $76.50, whereupon the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. Upon the hearing of this appeal his honor, Judge Pressley, ordered and adjudged that the appeal be sustained, and that the case be sent back for a new trial, with instructions to the court below, " that in order to presume a gift of a chattel there must be some proof of its delivery to the donee, and the subsequent declarations of the donor that he has given the chattel, are not sufficient of themselves to prove such gift."

From this order the plaintiff has appealed to this court on the grounds: " 1. That his honor erred in holding that in order to presume a gift of a chattel there must be some proof of its delivery to the donee, and the subsequent declarations of the donor that he has given the chattel, are not of themselves sufficient to prove such gift. 2. That upon the evidence the appeal should have been dismissed and judgment rendered for plaintiff."

It does not appear in the order of the Circuit judge granting the new trial, nor in the exceptions of the appellant by which the case is before us, upon what grounds this order was made. Nor is there any statement in the case from which said grounds may be inferred. We are at a loss, therefore, to know what errors of law we are called upon to correct as to the granting of the new trial. The appellant in his first exception objects to the proposition of law as to the effect of declarations of a donor which the judge sent down as instructions to the trial justice in the new trial which he had just ordered, and in his second and last exception he simply alleges in a general statement that the appeal below should have been dismissed and judgment rendered for the plaintiff upon the evidence. Such an exception we have often held is too general and cannot be considered. Besides, we have no power in a case at law to consider the facts with a view to correct errors, if any, therein. We see nothing in the " Case" which leads us to the conclusion that the Circuit judge ordered the new trial on the ground that the trial justice in his charge to his jury laid down the law different from the instructions which he sent down. On the contrary, the trial justice in his report of the case in...