Case ID: sc_42/html/0543-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 3481.
    Southern Railway Company v. Sheppard,
    November Term, 1894.
    The plaintiff having attached 156 horses of defendant at Greenville, S. C., obtained an order from Judge Watts, directing the sale of the horses as perishable property, on 22d November. Defendant moved before Judge Watts, on 21st November, for an order vacating his order of sale. This motion was refused, and defendant gave notice of appeal. On application by defendant to Hon. Y. J. Pope, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, at his chambers, on 22d November, 1894, he granted the following rule to show cause:
    “It appearing that the defendant in each of the above named causes has given notice of his appeal from the order of his honor, Judge Richard C. Watts, dated the 21st day of November, 1894, in each of the above named cases, and the return having been filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina this day, as appears from the telegram of Albert M. Boozer, Esq., as clerk of said court, and the petition of each of said appellants having been presented to me, praying that an order to stay all proceedings in the court below, pending such appeals, may be made, and especially that the sale of the horses of the defendant by the sheriff may be stayed by my order until the hearing of said appeals on their respective merits.
    “I am not satisfied to grant the order absolutely under Rule 21 of the Supreme Court, but it seems that the right of appeal will be seriously jeopardized by a refusal of relief under said rule. Therefore, I now order a rule to issue, requiring the plaintiff, respondent, in each of the above named cases, to show cause before the Justices of the Supreme Court, .on Tuesday, the 27th inst., in the city of Columbia, S. C., in the conference room of said court, at 10 o’clock A. M., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an order should not be made restraining the enforcement of the order appealed from until the cause on appeal can be heard on its merits; but in the meantime, and until the hearing of said rule, all sales or other proceeding, to enforce the order of Judge Watts now appealed from, shall be stayed. Let copies of the papers presented to me and a copy of this order be served upon the plaintiff, respondent, and the sheriff of Greenville County, and this original order exhibited to them. And thereafter let the originals be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. At chambers, at Newberry, S. C.”
    The return by plaintiff did not dispute the facts as alleged in the petition, but alleged that the horses were perishable property, and, therefore, were properly ordered to be sold; that Rule 21 of the Supreme Court did not authorize this rule to show cause nor any order thereon; that no appeal lies from Judge Watts’ order; and no supersedeas on appeal is provided for by law until judgment is entered.
    
      Parle & Mooney, for the appellant.
    
      T. P. Cothran, contra.
   Per Curiam.

Upon hearing the return to the rule in the above stated case, and the observations of counsel in opposition thereto, on motion of J. S. Cothran, attorney for the respondent, it is ordered, that the return made to the said rule be and the same is adj udged to be sufficient. It is further ordered and adjudged, that the rule to show cause, granted by his honor, Y. J. Pope, at Newberry, on the 22d instant, be and the same is hereby discharged.