Opinion
18145
December 18, 1963.
Messrs. Weinberg Weinberg, of Sumter, for Appellants, cite: As to error on part of trial Judge in finding the verdict was against the clear preponderance of the evidence and abusing his discretion in setting aside the verdict rendered by the jury: 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113; 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160; 195 S.E. 638; 78 S.E.2d 376; 179 S.E. 619; 60 S.E.2d 88; 118 F. Supp. 537; 87 S.E.2d 871; 55 S.E. 160.
Messrs. W.L. Clifton and R. Kirk McLeod, of Sumter, for Respondent, cite: As to an order granting or refusing a new trial when based solely on errors of law being subject to review by the Appellate Court, but when the order is based upon questions of fact, or upon both questions of law and fact, it is not appealable: 238 S.C. 90, 119 S.E.2d 231; 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 176; 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; (S.C.) 133 S.E.2d 127; 109 S.C. 396, 96 S.E. 144.
December 18, 1963.
This action for wrongful death resulted in a verdict for the defendants. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence was granted by the court. The defendants appeal and charge error.
This appeal presents no issue for review by this Court under the well settled rule that a trial judge has the authority and duty to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence, and such order is not appealable. Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; Donkle v. Forster, 238 S.C. 90, 119 S.E.2d 231; and Lee v. Kirby, S.C. 133 S.E.2d 127.
Appeal dismissed.