Outlaw v. Barnes

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 30, 1923

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1923-04-30

Decided 1923-04-30

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

¶2Por the reasons assigned by his Honor, Judge Shipp, it is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran and Marion, Concur.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: Before SHIPP, J., Sumter, July, 1922. Affirmed.Action by W. Lawrence Outlaw et al. , against Henry N. Barnes et al. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. For former appeal, see 118 S.C. 189 ; 110 S.E., 124 . The decree of Circuit Judge S.W.G. Shipp, referred to in the opinion of Justice Watts, follows: In this action a decree was made by Judge Rice at Chambers in Aiken, S.C. on September 20, 1920. Thereafter a motion was made before him at Chambers in Columbia to amend his decree by correcting certain clerical errors alleged to have been made therein. Upon this motion Judge Rice held that the errors complained of were clerical and amended his decree, correcting them in conformity with the grounds of the motion, signing this second decree on March 31, 1921. An appeal was taken from the second decree, and it was set aside upon the ground that he did not have jurisdiction at chambers, and while he was holding Court in another circuit, to sign the second decree; but the judgment of the Supreme Court provided that it was without prejudice to the right of the respondents to renew their motion in a Court or before a Judge having jurisdiction to entertain it. The respondents in that appeal, Henry Barnes and his children, defendants herein, noticed a motion, before me, as presiding Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lee County, in the open Court at Bishopville, S.C. to be heard on April 20, 1922, upon the same grounds and for the same purpose as that heard by Judge Rice at Columbia, S.C. This motion same up during the term, and, with the consent of the counsel, was marked heard by me, and was argued before me at Florence, S.C. by consent, thereafter. The plaintiff, W.F. Outlaw, appeared in response to the notice and, among other objections, urged those based on jurisdictional grounds. I have given very careful consideration to the motion and the objections to it. I am satisfied that Judge Rice stated exactly the reverse of what he intended to state and that his decree of September 20, 1920, did not announce the judgment he intended to make. Errors such as those, not being errors of judgment but errors in announcing the judgment, are necessarily clerical and ought to be corrected. I think this conclusion is in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court before alluded to. I hold also that I have jurisdiction to correct the decree. See Carroll v. Tompkins , 14 S.C. 233 , and cases therein cited, Henlein v. Graham , 32 S.C. 303 ; 10 S.E., 1012 . Besides, these defendants were given the right to renew their motion, in a Court or before a Judge having jurisdiction to entertain it, by the Supreme Court on the last appeal. I know of no other Judge or Court to whom they could go, and, if the presiding Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lee County has no jurisdiction, then that right was no right at all. The second decree of Judge Rice set out the errors of the first, and stated their corrections; in other words, announced the judgment he intended to make. It would waste time to rewrite the decree. I will, therefore, adopt as mine. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree of Judge Rice, as amended, made in this cause, dated March, 31, 1921, be, and the same is, the decree and judgment of this Court as fully as if set out herein word for word.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Parallel citations

117 S.E 363