Weatherby v. Covengton

• Citation: 28 S.E. 1,51 S.C. 55
• Parties: WEATHERBY v. COVENGTON et al.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1897
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

28 S.E. 1

51 S.C. 55

WEATHERBY v. COVENGTON et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 23, 1897

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Marion county; R. C Watts, Judge.

Action by Caroline Weatherby against T. C. Covengton and Robert Webster. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. J Montgomery, for appellants.

Johnson & Johnson, for respondent.

JONES J.

The complaint in this case was for the recovery of the possession of personal property, and damages for unlawful taking and detention thereof. A demurrer was interposed, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was overruled by the circuit court. Appellants except thereto, as follows "Because it is respectfully submitted that his honor, Judge Watts, erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's complaint, thereby holding that it stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants." Respondent insists that this exception cannot be considered, because too general. We so hold. State v. Turner, 18 S.C. 103; McDaniel v. Stokes, 19 S.C. 61; Cureton v. Stokes, 20 S.C. 583; Talbott v. Padgett, 30 S.C. 167, 8 S.E. 845; Sims v. Jones, 43 S.C. 99, 20 S.E. 905; Marshall v. Creel, 44 S.C. 485, 22 S.E. 597, and many other cases. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

McIVER C.J.

I concur in the conclusion that the exception upon which this appeal is based is too general to require the consideration of this court. Rule V of this court declares that "an exception for the purpose of an appeal must contain a statement of the proposition of law or fact which it is desired to review." In Talbott v. Padgett, 30 S. C., at page 170, 8 S. E., at page 846, this court used the following language, which is quoted with approval in Sims v. Jones, 43 S.C. 99, 20 S.E. 905: "The object of exceptions is a very important one. It is to bring to the attention of the court the precise question of law or fact involved and desired to be reviewed. To do this effectually and definitely, something more must be stated than merely an occurrence or order or decree below, objected to as erroneous. The grounds of the alleged error must be presented in a direct and positive form, and, especially if it be a legal error complained of, the principle of law alleged to be violated must be stated." Again, in Marshall v Creel, 44 S. C., at page 485, 22 S. E., at page 597, this court, after stating the first three exceptions, used this language: "It is very manifest that the first three grounds are entirely too general to call for any consideration at the hands of this court. They might, for all practical purposes, be embraced in a single exception, because the circuit judge erred in not sustaining the defense of payment set up by the answer; and surely such an exception would not be entitled to be considered by this court. No specific error is pointed out, and these exceptions would involve the necessity of retrying the case upon the testimony upon which it was heard by the circuit judge. This, certainly,...