Schroder v. Eason
Supreme Court of South Carolina
The brief, in this case, states, that the process was served on the defendant, who brought it to his attorneys, prior to the meeting of the Court, paid an appearance fee, and instructed them in a defence. At the time of leaving the copy, the attorneys marked on the face of the process, “ appearance to be entered,” and on the back, the substance of the defence.
Read the full summary
The brief, in this case, states, that the process was served on the defendant, who brought it to his attorneys, prior to the meeting of the Court, paid an appearance fee, and instructed them in a defence. At the time of leaving the copy, the attorneys marked on the face of the process, “ appearance to be entered,” and on the back, the substance of the defence. Accidentally the names of the attorneys were not entered on the docket, but the copy was put into the bundle of cases ready for trial. The case was called between nine and ten o’clock, in the morning, when the bar were not present; and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Colcock, J.
Upon the first ground, there is no rule of law or practice, by which the Court is authorized or permitted to review a decision made, or decree given, in a case under the process jurisdiction, in any other way or manner, than is pursued in cases under its higher jurisdiction.
The rules of Court require the defendant to enter his appearance, and file his defence, on or before the first day of the Court, which, it is admitted, was not done. It is true, that where this is neglected, and the omission is discovered, before the cause is called for…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sullivan v. ShellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892