Case ID: sc_129/html/0079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Marion.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11546
    DANTZLER ET AL. v. FUNDERBURG
    (123 S. E., 788)
    1. Appeal and Error — Grant op New Trial, Based On View op Entire Record, Cannot be Assumed to be Predicated On Error op Law. — When Circuit Judge ascribed his action in granting a new trial to his view or opinion of entire record, Supreme Court cannot assume that ruling was predicated on or controlled by error of law in a sense and to an extent that would subject it to review.
    2. Appeal and Error — New Trial — Granting- op New Trial on Entire Record Within Trial Judge’s Discretion. — The granting of new trial on the entire record instead of on specific grounds assigned held within trial Judge’s sound discretion, and not reviewable in absence of showing of- abuse of discretion.
    Before SeasE, J., Orangeburg, October, 1923.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Georganna Dantzler, as Administratrix of the Estate of A. D. Dantzler, and 'in her own right and others, against Nero Funderburg. From an order granting defendant’s motion for new trial, plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Mr. Jacob Moorer, for appellant,
    cites: Order granting new trial erroneous: 108 S. C., 486. Possession follows 
      
      title: 102 S. C., 398; 123 S. C., 69. Deed absolute on its face is what it purports to be: 64 S. C., 177. Courts will not lend aid to person attempting to evade payment of taxes: Cooley Taxation, page 299; 64 S. C., 35. Failure to pay taxes some evidence that no claim was made to land: 123 S. C., 84.
    
      Mr. George K. Rich for respondent.
    July 16, 1924.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

In action for the recovery of real estate, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendants moved for a new trial. The Circuit Judge granted .the motion, and “ordered that a new trial be, and the same is hereby, granted upon the entire record in the case.”

The plaintiffs have appealed upon the grounds, substantially, that it was error to grant the new trial “upon the entire record in the case” when the motion for new trial was not based upon that ground, but was based upon specific allegations' of error of law in the admission of testimony and in the Court’s charge to the jury, which allegations of error were .wholly without merit. The Circuit Judge having ascribed his action on the motion to his view or opinion of the entire trial record, we cannot assume that the ruling was predicated upon or1 .controlled by error of law in a sense and to an extent that would subject it to review in this Court. The granting of the new trial upon the entire record instead of upon the specific grounds assigned by defendants’ counsel was within the sound discretion of. the trial Judge, and the case for appeal discloses no such abuse of .discretion as would warrant a reversal.

It is accordingly, adjudged that the order of the Circuit Court be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser and Cothran concur.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.