EAKER v. FLOYD

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

8840

Attorney(S)

Mr. J.C. Otts, for appellant, cites: The magistrate before whom the new trial was ordered was not the magistrate before whom the trial should be had, not being the next nearest magistrate to the original magistrate, qualified to try the case: Const., V 23; Code Civil Proc., sec. 23; 25 Stats. 1149; 26 Stats. 114 to 118; 1 Code of Laws, sec. 1465; 1 Suthl. Statutory Construction 465. Affidavit on which motion to change venue was based insufficient: 67 S.C. 245; 2 Code Civil Proc. 19; Const., VI 20. Mr. C.C. Wyche, for respondent.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

8840

Attorney(S)

Mr. J.C. Otts, for appellant, cites: The magistrate before whom the new trial was ordered was not the magistrate before whom the trial should be had, not being the next nearest magistrate to the original magistrate, qualified to try the case: Const., V 23; Code Civil Proc., sec. 23; 25 Stats. 1149; 26 Stats. 114 to 118; 1 Code of Laws, sec. 1465; 1 Suthl. Statutory Construction 465. Affidavit on which motion to change venue was based insufficient: 67 S.C. 245; 2 Code Civil Proc. 19; Const., VI 20. Mr. C.C. Wyche, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

EAKER v. FLOYD.

May 6, 1914. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE HYDRICK.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court granting a new trial in a case removed into that Court by appeal from a magistrate's Court. It does not appear that the decision was influenced by any error of law, or that this Court could render judgment absolute upon the right of the appellant, if it should determine that no error was committed in granting the new trial. The order is, therefore, not appealable. Daughty v. Railroad Co., 92 S.C. 361, 75 S.E. 553; Kirkland v. Railway, 93 S.C. 574, 77 S.E. 709; Miller v. Railroad Co., 95 S.C. 471, 79 S.E. 645.

Appeal dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE GAGE did not sit in this case.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.