Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

111 S.C. 333

98 S.E 129

Miller v. Goodwin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 21, 1919

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1919-01-21

Before Townsend, J., Richland, at chambers, April 4, 1918. Action by E. McKay Miller against George Goodwin, Gus F. Wiles and others. From an order referring cause to the master, the defendants named appeal. submits: That Judge Tozvnsend zvas without jurisdiction to grant the order appealed from: Code of 1912, vol. VII, sec. 3833; Code of 1912, vol. II, sec. 330; 25 S. C. 72; 97 S. C. 459; 98 S. C. 184; 24 Am. St. Rep. 366; 79 S. C. 557; 104 S. C. 393.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1921

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1919-01-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

¶2*334 1, 2 *333 This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Townsend, resident Judge of the Fifth Circuit, referring *334 the cause to the master made in term time while a‘ presiding Judge was holding the Court of the Fifth Circuit. Notice having been given that application would be made to the presiding Judge for an order of reference, but this notice was withdrawn,' and notice given that application would be made to the resident Judge. The appeal raises the question whether the resident Circuit Judge at chambers has jurisdiction to grant after notice an order of reference to take testimony after notice of application for a similar order has been made that application would be made to the presiding Judge holding Court in the same county. There is no merit in the' appeal. An order of this kind can be made either by the presiding or resident Judge after proper notice. No substantial rights of the appellants have been violated, and the order appealed from is not appealable.

¶3 Judgment affirmed.

/111/sc/333 · .json · Public domain