Ilderton v. Charleston Consol. Ry. Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by Robert F. Ilderton, Jr., by his guardian ad litem, Robert F. Ilderton, against the Charleston Consolidated Railway & Righting Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. submits: Admission that witness would testify as stated in affidavit did not justify the trial of the case: Rule 27 of the Circuit Court; Civil Code, sec. 3987; 83 S'. C. 193; 76 S. C. 144; 30 Am.
Read the full summary
Action by Robert F. Ilderton, Jr., by his guardian ad litem, Robert F. Ilderton, against the Charleston Consolidated Railway & Righting Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. submits: Admission that witness would testify as stated in affidavit did not justify the trial of the case: Rule 27 of the Circuit Court; Civil Code, sec. 3987; 83 S'. C. 193; 76 S. C. 144; 30 Am. Dec. 688 (Ky.) ; 68 S. C. Discretion of the Court must be guided by law and cannot be exercised in the denial of a plain legal right: 68 S. C. 35; 15 S. C. 328. submit: It was not an abuse of discretion for the…
1Dissent
Messrs. Justices Watts and Gage,
dissenting. We think the Court was right to tell the jury that the verdict could not affect O’Quinn; that was the issue presented to him and on which he ruled.
We think, also, that the case is so like Barnes’ case, 110 S. C. 259, 96 S. E. 530, as not to be substantially different from it.
We, therefore, dissent.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barnes v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1918