Case ID: sc_130/html/0338-01.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

11624
    SHAW v. SHAW
    (125 S. E., 566)
    Appeal and Error — Opinion on Prior Appeal, Law op Case on Stmseouent Trial. — Court properly overruled plaintiff’s exceptions to Special Referee’s report, where exceptions raised practically the same questions as had been raised and determined adversely to plaintiff on prior appeal.
    Before Featherstone, J., Laurens, July, 1923.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Thomas M. Shaw against Bessie D. Shaw. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    
      Messrs. Graydon & Graydon and H. S. Blackwell, for appellant,
    cite: Former appeal: 22 S. C., 386. Decree void in Missouri: Statute of Mo., Sec. 2374; 26 Mo. App., 647; 42 Mo., 159; 7 Mo. App., 165. The decree of divorce of another State not binding in South Carolina: 76 S. C., 145; 44 S. C., 195.
    
      Messrs. Simpson, Cooper & Babb and W. R. Richey, for respondent,
    cite: Prima facie evidence of debt: 110 S. C., 88; 74 S. C., 527. Decree: 12 S. C., 9.
    December 9, 1924.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

This is the second appeal in this case. The judgment of this Court on the former appeal, affirming a Circuit Decree of Judge Moore, is reported in 122 S. C., 386; 115 S. E., 322.

The present appeal is from a decree of his Honor, Judge Featherstone. The questions now sought to be raised here were, in substance, raised by exceptions to the Special Referee’s Report upon the hearing before Judge Featherstone and were disposed of by him as follows:

“The questions raised are practically the same as those raised by the plaintiff on appeal to the Supreme Court, and have been passed on by that Court adversely to the plaintiff in its affirming the decree of Judge Moore, as being just and right.”

In that view, after careful consideration of appellant’s argument to the contrary, we are satisfied the Circuit Judge was correct.

It is accordingly adjudged that, for the reasons therein stated, the decree of the Circuit Court is hereby affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Fraser and Cothran concur.

Mr. Justice Watts dissents.

Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary did not participate.