Case ID: sc_111/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Watts.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

10125
    MILLER v. GOODWIN ET AL.
    
    (98 S. E. 129.)
    1. Refereitce — Proceedings — Right to Make. — A resident Judge in chambers may refer cause to master for taking of testimony during term time after proper notice, notwithstanding that notice of application for reference had been made to presiding Judge in same county.
    2. Appear and Error — Orders Appealable. — An order of reference to master for taking of testimony by resident Judge in chambers during term time and after proper notice, not affecting substantial rights, is not appealable.
    Before Townsend, J., Richland, at chambers, April 4, 1918.
    Affirmed.
    Action by E. McKay Miller against George Goodwin, Gus F. Wiles and others. From an order referring cause to the master, the defendants named appeal.
    
      Mr. Barnard B. Evans, for appellants,
    submits: That Judge Tozvnsend zvas without jurisdiction to grant the order appealed from: Code of 1912, vol. VII, sec. 3833; Code of 1912, vol. II, sec. 330; 25 S. C. 72; 97 S. C. 459; 98 S. C. 184; 24 Am. St. Rep. 366; 79 S. C. 557; 104 S. C. 393. The order deprived appellants of a mode of trial to which they were entitled, and is, therefore, appealable: 49 S. C. 423. Question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even in the Stipreme Court: 79 S. C. 557.
    
      Mr. Hunter A. Gibbes, for plaintiff-respondent,
    cites: As to the jurisdiction and power of a Circuit Judge at chambers: Code, vol. II, sec. 440, sec. 442; 55 S. C. 379; 68 S. C. 118.
    January 21, 1919.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Townsend, resident Judge of the Fifth Circuit, referring the cause to the master made in term time while a‘ presiding Judge was holding the Court of the Fifth Circuit. Notice having been given that application would be made to the presiding Judge for an order of reference, but this notice was withdrawn,' and notice given that application would be made to the resident Judge. The appeal raises the question whether the resident Circuit Judge at chambers has jurisdiction to grant after notice an order of reference to take testimony after notice of application for a similar order has been made that application would be made to the presiding Judge holding Court in the same county. There is no merit in the' appeal. An order of this kind can be made either by the presiding or resident Judge after proper notice. No substantial rights of the appellants have been violated, and the order appealed from is not appealable.

Judgment affirmed.