Case Name: SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER CO. v. MARTIN ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-12-19
Citations: 118 S.C. 319
Docket Number: 10785
Parties: SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER CO. v. MARTIN ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 319–326

Head Matter:
10785
SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER CO. v. MARTIN ET AL.
(110 S. E. 804)
1. New Trial—Stenographer's Notes Not Necessary in Preparing Appeal.—Under Code Civ. Proc. 1912, § 384, and Rule 5 of the Supreme Court (90 S. E. vii), providing for the preparation of a case on appeal, the use of the Court stenographer’s notes in the preparation of the appeal is not necessary, so that a new trial is-not authorized because stenographer died without transcribing his notes and no other person could read his notes.
2. Appeal and Error—Trial Judge May Allow so Much op Case as He Sees Fit or Make a Report op Whole Case Himself.— Under Code Civ. Proc. 1912, § 384, and Rule 5 of the Supreme Court (90 S. E. vii), where there was a disagreement in settling the case or allowing proposed amendments because of the death of the stenographer who acted at the trial, the tx-ial Judge who tried the case may allow so much of the proposed case or amendments as he sees fit, or he can make a report of the whole case himself, and the Supreme Court is bound by whatever case the trial Judge makes.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
3. Appeal and Error—Settlement of Case by Trial Judge Held Sufficient.—In action in which the stenographer who acted at the trial had died and no one could read his notes, where the trial Judge approved the case as stated for appeal by plaintiff with a statement that he could not certify that amendments to the case proposed by defendant’s counsel contained all that was in the testimony or in the charge to the jury that was substantial or that was objected to on the part- of defendant’s attorneys, the case was settled by the trial Judge as well as could be done, and the settlement thereof was sufficient.
4. Appeal and Error—Error in Statement of Case on Appeal Held Immaterial.—In an action where the Court stenographer died before appeal and no one could read his notes, and the case was settled by the statement of the trial Judge to which defendant excepted, a statement in the opinion that the settlement by the trial Judge was before the Court without exception was erroneous, but, where it had no effect, is insufficient to cause a reversal of the conclusion of the Court.
5. Appeal and Error—Service on Opposing Counsel op Exceptions to Order of Trial Judge Settling Case on Appeal Not Equivalent to Serving on Opposing Counsel Case With Exceptions.—Under Code Civ.'Proc. 1912, § 384, providing that in appeal to the Supreme Court the appealing party shall prepare a case with exceptions and serve them on the opposite party or his attorney, service on opposing counsel by counsel of the .appealing party of exceptions to an order of the trial Judge settling a proposed case for appeal was not equivalent to service of a case with exceptions as required by the statute, and an appeal so presented was not valid.
Before Moore, J., Spartanburg, March, 1920.
Appeal dismissed.
Action by Southern Pine Lumber Co. against D. L. L. Martin and A. B. Cantrell. From judgment for plaintiff the defendants served notice of appeal, but on account of the death of the Court stenographer claimed that the case could not be made up. Respondent served a proposed case and on hearing before the trial Judge to settle the case he filed an order as follows:
After reading the proposed amendments to the case with exceptions on the part of respondent attorneys, I am satisfied that substantially what is set forth did take place, but I cannot say that these amendments contain all that was contained in the testimony or in the charge to the jury that was substantial or that was objected to on the part of defendant-appellants’ attorneys. The case was a long one and the testimony voluminous, and I am unable to give an abstract as to all that transpired involving the merits of the case or the law as charged by me applicable thereto in the absence of the stenographer’s transcript. With these qualifications the amendments are allowed.
Ernest Moore,
Presiding Judge.
The following are the grounds presented in appellant’s petition for rehearing:
(1) That a material point has been inadvertently overlooked by the Supreme Court in its opinion filed December 19, 1912, in the above-stated case, in the following particulars, to wit:
(a) In that the Court failed to consider the exceptions filed by the appellants to the settlement of the case' by the presiding Judge, they having held in. their opinion that the sole question involved is “whether or not a new trial is to be granted in a- law case on the ground that the stenographer, who had taken the testimony at the trial, died without having transcribed his notes and no other person could read his notes, notwithstanding that the case had been made and settled by the trial Judge,” when it appeared in the record that the Judge failed to settle the case, he having stated in his order that the- amendments proposed did not contain all the law or all the testimony material to the case.
(b) In that the Court, in holding that “there is no law or rule that requires the use of stenographer’s notes in the preparation of an appeal,’’ they having failed inadvertently to consider the fact that, when the law that provided for a Court stenographer was passed, by implication required that the stenographer’s notes be used and required to make up the case for appeal, and by implication the law that where there was any doubt as to what took place in the trial, the same should be settled by the stenographer’s notes.
(c) In that the Supreme Court inadvertently overlooked the exceptions of appellant to the Judge’s order, attempting to settle the case as appears from the following extract of their opinion, to wit: “The provisions of the Statute and the rules of Court were .complied with, and the presiding Judge settled the case, and that settlement is before us without exception.” When the record shows that the appellants did except to the settlement of the case by the presiding Judge.
From the order of Judge.Moore defendants appeal:
Messrs. John Gary Evans and Nicholls & Wyche, for appellants, cite:
Notes of trial Judge being lost case should be retried: Harp. Eq. 90. Same where record cannot be made up for that and other reasons: 2 R. C. L., par. 216; 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860, note; 2 Cyc. 1075, note; 12 Ann. Cas. 1053; 83 Pac. 591 and cases cited: 17 Mich. 325; 35 Mich. 370; 98 Mass. 34; 148 U. S. 245; 67 Mo. 36; 15 Tex. App. 336; 54 S. W. 1054; 32 Neb. 201; 82 N. C. 243.
Messrs. Brown & Boyd, for respondent, cite:
No law or rule making stenographer’s transcript necessary: Code Proc. 1912, Sec. 384; Rule 5 Sup. Ct., Sec. 5, 4 C. J. 139. New trial should not be granted: L. R. A. 1915-B 353 and note. Contrary cases are where the transcript is requisite.
December 19, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an appeal from an order of Judge Moore, and the sole question involved is whether or not a new trial is to be granted in á law case on the ground that the stenographer who took the testimony at the trial died without having transcribed his notes, and no other person could read his notes, notwithstanding that a case had been made and settled by the trial Judge. The Civil Code of Procedure, § 384, and Rule 5 of this Court (90 S. E. vii), provide how a case on appeal shall be prepared. There is no law or rule that requires the use of stenographer's notes in the preparation of the appeal.
The authorities quoted by appellant do not apply to the present procedure. Before 1868 the Circuit Judge could not grant a new trial; the Court of Appeals or'the Supreme Court, only, could do that, even in a law case. In the jurisdictions wherein new trials have been granted for loss of testimony, it is based on a Statute or rule of Court. That law does not apply in this State, as before stated.
We have a Statute and rule showing how a case is settled. If there is disagreement in the settling of the case on allowing proposed case or amendments offered, it is the duty of the Judge who tried the case to settle it one way or the other. He can allow so much of the case proposed, or amendments as he sees fit, or he can make a report of the whole case himself, and we are bound by whatever case the Judge makes. It is his duty to give some settlement and report in order that the cause may be heard on appeal.
The provisions of the -Statute and rules of Court were complied with, and the presiding Judge settled the case, and that settlement is before us without exceptions. The contention of appellants is without merit and must be overruled, and appeal dismissed.
February 24, 1922.