Court Opinion

ID: 9564983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:12:49.280334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:18.168679
License: Public Domain

Legge, Acting Associate Justice
(dissenting).
In the light of our decision of the former appeal, 235 S. C. 552, 112 S. E. (2d) 646, in which we held the complaint sufficient against demurrer, it is apparent that the issues before the Special Referee were factual rather than of law, to wit’: were appellants about to construct and operate a supermarket as alleged in the complaint, and, if so, would such construction and operation result in the consequences to the respondents that they had alleged? Consideration of the voluminous testimony offered in support of the allegations of the complaint convinces me that the- Special Referee’s findings of fact, concurred in by the Circuit Judge save in certain minor respects not affecting the result, were neither lacking in evidentiary support nor contrary to the clear preponderance of the evidence. Under the long-settled rule, the cause being in equity, such concurrent findings are conclusive on appeal. Galphin v. Wells, 236 S. C. 606, 115 S. C. (2d) 288; Hamilton v. Palmetto Properties, Inc., 237 S. C. 140, 116 S. E. (2d) 12. I would affirm the judgment below.
Bussey, J., concurs.