Case Name: STATE v. SEAY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-04-24
Citations: 91 S.C. 342
Docket Number: 8194
Parties: STATE v. SEAY.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
8194
STATE v. SEAY.
Appeal.—Where the State serves notice of intention, to appeal upon an attorney not representing defendant on Circuit, and who accepted service on condition that he should be employed by defendant, the appeal will be dismissed after time for appealing has expired.
Before Gage, J., Spartanburg.
Appeal dismissed.
Indictment against Cleveland Seay for seduction under promise of marriage.
It appears that Mr. John Gary Evans represented the defendant at the preliminary hearing but not on Circuit, although his name was on the docket as defendant’s attorney, and he was tried and acquitted by direction of the Court in his absence, and that Mr. Evans accepted service of notice of intention to appeal on condition that he be employed to represent defendant, which was not done. It also appears that he inadvertently accepted service of the proposed “Case,” but appellant was notified of the mistake very soon thereafter.
Solicitor J. C. Otts for the State, appellant.
April 24, 1912.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It appearing, upon the call of this case, that the only notice served by the appellant was upon an attorney who was not authorized to accept service for the respondent, and who only accepted on condition that he should be employed by the respondent; and it further appearing that the time for appealing has expired,
It is, therefore, ordered, that the appeal be dismissed.