From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKnight v. Dyson

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 24, 1912
91 S.C. 337 (S.C. 1912)

Opinion

8192

April 24, 1912.

Before DeVORE, J., Sumter, April, 1911. Modified.

Action by H.D. McKnight against W.J. Dyson and C. D. Dyson in court of Magistrate Horace Harley. From Circuit order plaintiff appeals.

Mr. L.D. Jennings, for appellant, cites: Witness only called and sworn is not subject to cross-examination: 58 S.C. 75; 43 Ala. 406; 14 Ark. 555. If there be error in refusing cross-examination it is cured by party calling witness as his own: 61 S.C. 292.

Mr. J.H. Clifton, contra. Oral argument.


April 24, 1912. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court, granting a new trial in a case, in which a magistrate had rendered judgment. This is not a case in which this Court can render judgment absolute, and, therefore, the order is not appealable. Lampley v. A.C.L. Ry., 77 S.C. 319, 57 S.E. 1104; Pace Co. v. A.C.L. Ry., 83 S.C. 33, 64 S.E. 915; DesChamps v. A.C.L. Ry., 83 S.C. 192; 65 S.E. 176; Dixon v. S.A.L. Ry., 83 S.C. 393, 65 S.E. 351; Jones v. Woodside Cotton Mills, 83 S.C. 565, 65 S.E. 819; Barker v. Thomas, 85 S.C. 82, 67 S.E. 1.

There are exceptions assigning error also, on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in ordering "that upon any future trial of this case, it is the duty of the magistrate trying the case, to call the witness, Abraham Davis, for examination and cross-examination, before the plaintiff closes in chief."

It was error for the Circuit Judge, to undertake to direct the manner, in which the plaintiff should conduct his case and examine his witnesses. The exceptions raising this question are, therefore, sustained.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is modified.


Summaries of

McKnight v. Dyson

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 24, 1912
91 S.C. 337 (S.C. 1912)
Case details for

McKnight v. Dyson

Case Details

Full title:McKNIGHT v. DYSON

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 24, 1912

Citations

91 S.C. 337 (S.C. 1912)
74 S.E. 753

Citing Cases

Daughty v. Railroad Co.

The case was, therefore, correctly decided, although the Court does say, in broad terms, that it has been…

Snipes v. Davis, Director General, et al

These cases are cited solely for the purpose of showing to what extent the confusion in the decisions has…