State v. Sullivan
Decision Date | 10 December 1923 |
Docket Number | 11366. |
Citation | 121 S.E. 47,127 S.C. 186 |
Parties | STATE v. SULLIVAN. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Charleston County John S. Wilson, Judge.
From an order that defendant M. S. Sullivan had violated the conditions of a suspended sentence for violation of the dispensary laws, and making the sentence immediately effective, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Logan & Grace and John I. Cosgrove, all of Charleston, for appellant.
Thomas P. Stoney, of Charleston, for the State.
This is an appeal from the following order of his honor, Judge Wilson:
Presiding Judge.
Charleston, S. C., October 5, 1922."
The exceptions are as follows:
The first question that will be considered is whether the appellant had reasonable notice of the rule to show cause why the suspended portion of the sentence should not be carried into effect. The fact that the defendant employed an attorney to represent him necessarily shows that he (the appellant) had notice that the rule to show cause had been issued. It was not necessary for him to be personally served with a copy of the rule to show cause, but the notice was sufficient if he was informed that a copy of the rule to show cause was left at his residence for him, with a proper person. Furthermore, the uncontradicted testimony is to the effect that the appellant had endeavored to avoid service of a copy of the rule to show cause.
There is another reason why the appellant cannot interpose the objection that he was not personally served with a copy of the rule to show cause. The question raised by the second exception involves the merits of the case and was a waiver of the appellant's right to raise the objection that he had not been personally served with a copy of the rule to show cause. Fitzgerald v. Case Co., 94 S.C. 54, 77 S.E. 739; Williams v. Hatcher, 95 S.C. 49, 78 S.E. 615; Wichman & Son v. Fox, 96 S.C. 469, 81 S.E. 180; Mims v. Garvin et al., 106 S.C. 381, 91 S.E. 289.
The second exception is also without merit.
Appeal dismissed.
The position of the appellant in this case does not appeal to me.
I can see how a nonresident can move to set aside a service and appear for that purpose only. The idea is not that he did not know, but, being a nonresident, the court has no jurisdiction of him and cannot acquire it that way. He can appear for that purpose only.
I can see how a person who has no notice of a proceeding against him might appear and ask the court to open its judgment against him and show that he had no notice, either actual or constructive. It is logical to allow him to appear for the sole purpose of setting aside the service.
The object of service it to give notice, and the purpose of personal service is to be sure that the person served has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... different defendants in an action for a joint trespass has, ... however, received the sanction of the courts of this state in ... a number of early decisions. Bevin v. Linguard, 1 ... Brev. 503, 2 Am. Dec. 684; Smith v. Singleton, 2 ... McMul. 184, 39 Am. Dec. 122; ... and the courts," this court should not hesitate to ... overrule it, just as was done with the cases of State v ... Sullivan, 127 S.C. 186, 121 S.E. 47, and Barron v ... Liberty National Bank, 131 S.C. 443, 128 S.E. 414. In ... the two cases last mentioned, "hardly ... ...
-
Ex parte Bess
... ... allegation in said petition ... II ... That said Ben Bess was duly committed to the state ... penitentiary from Florence county under sentence of thirty ... years, a copy of said commitment being hereto attached as ... Exhibit A and ... The ... court approved the reasons assigned therefor in a similar ... case, State v. Sullivan, 127 S.C. 186, 121 S.E. 47, ... 51, by the writer hereof, in his dissenting opinion. There it ... was said: ... "His ... ...
-
State v. Gleaton
...there was nothing upon which a jury was required to pass. The Renew Case overrules the judgment set forth in the case of State v. Sullivan, 127 S.C. 186, 121 S.E. 47, 52, and the dissenting opinion in the Sullivan Case is now judgment of the court. From that case we take the following extra......
-
State v. Renew
...defendant has a right to submit this issue to a jury for the reasons assigned by Mr. Justice Cothran in his dissenting opinion in State v. Sullivan, supra, on pages and 198 (121 S.E. 47). I am in favor of overruling State v. Sullivan, sustaining the exceptions, and reversing the judgment of......