Wilson v. All

• Decision Date: 20 August 1910
• Citation: 86 S.C. 586,68 S.E. 824
• Parties: WILSON v. ALL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

68 S.E. 824

86 S.C. 586

WILSON

v.ALL et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 20, 1910.

Appeal and Error §167^*)—Decisions Reviewable—Effect of Consent.

Where a temporary injunction was issued against defendants, and, upon their motion to dissolve it, was continued, and they then agreed that they would give bond for a certain amount, provided the injunction be dissolved, and an order was made to that effect, the right of appeal from such order was waived by the agreement.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1008-1014; Dec. Dig. § 167.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; T. S. Sease, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Z. I. Wilson against Daisy J. All and F. D. Bessinger. From an order requiring defendants give bond in lieu of an, injunction, they app toeal. Appeal dismissed.

James A. Willis, for appellants.

James M. Patterson, for respondent.

JONES, C. J. Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from defendants for wrongful and wanton flooding of her land and injury to same and the crops thereon by draining water from defendants' land onto plaintiff's land by means of a ditch, and for an injunction to prohibit continuation of such trespasses. A temporary injunction was granted by Judge Sease, and upon motion of defendants to dissolve the same he stated that he would continue the injunction, and at the request of defendants declared that he would require plaintiff to give bond in the sum of $1,000, whereupon plaintiff's attorney offered that if the defendants would give plaintiff a bond of that sum, with two sureties, the plaintiff would not insist upon the injunction being enforced, and would allow the water to continue to be discharged through said ditch. Defendants' attorney agreed to this, and the bond was given by the defendants. Provision was made for this in the order of Judge Sease, from which defendants now appeal. The terms of the order, dated April 9, 1910, were: "That said injunction be and the same is hereby continued pending the trial of the cause on the merits, but on the defendants entering into a bond to plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars with two sureties who shall justify, to be approved by the clerk of the court, the said injunction shall not issue; that the condition of said bond shall be that the defendants will pay to the plaintiff any damages she may sustain by reason of said injunction not being enforced."

The exceptions are to the refusal of the motion to dissolve the...