urt having nojurisdiction to try an action by a nonresident Plaintiffagainst a foreign corporation where the cause of action didnot arise in this State and the subject matter is not situatedwithin this State: 32 S.C. 319, 11 S.E. 192; 122 S.C. 222, 115 S.E. 306; 155 S.C. 436, 152 S.E. 658; 176 S.C. 215, 179 S.E. 787; 184 S.C. 362, 192 S.E. 558; 72 S.C. 479, 52 S.E. 223. As to what constitutes legalprejudice: 24 Words and Phrases, 586; 217 N.W. 604, 607, 116 Neb. 405; 233 S.C. 297, 104 S.E.2d 374; 228 S.C. 606, 91 S.E.2d 321; 229 S.C. 329, 92 S.E.2d 847; 60 F.2d 831. Messrs. Leppard Leppard, of Chesterfield, and James P. Mozingo, III, of Darlington, for Respondent, cite: As to discretionary powers of trial judge togrant voluntary nonsuit without prejudice: 82 S.C. 384, 62 S.E. 1116; 225 S.C. 384, 82 S.E.2d 609; 233 S.C. 297, 104 S.E.2d 374. As to Appellate Court notpassing upon questions or issues that were not raised in,or passed upon by, the lower Court: 222 S.C. 401, 73 S.E.2d 277; 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311; 218 S.C. 291, 62 S.E.2d 507; 216 S.C. 483, 58 S.E.2d 893; 216 S.C. 188, 57 S.E.2d 249. As to a dismissal of anaction on the sole ground that the Court has no jurisdictionof the subject matter of the suit not being an adjudicationof the merits of the case and will not bar another action forthe same cause: 50 C.J.S. 72, Sec. 638; 55 S.C. 490, 33 S.E. 571; 88 S.C. 413, 70 S.E. 1056; 110 S.C. 155, 96 S.E. 481; 168 S.C. 160, 167 S.E. 229; 188 S.C. 106, 198 S.E. 153; 217 S.C. 118, 60 S.E.2d 59; 29 F. Supp. 65. As to the fact that the defendant will have to defendanother similar action not constituting legal prejudiceto the defendant: 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311; 228 S.C. 606, 91 S.E.2d 321; 233 S.C. 297, 104 S.E.2d 374. April 23, 1963.

Messrs. F. Turner Clayton, of Cheraw, and J.E. Dudley, of Bennettsville, for Appellant, cite: As to the granting oforders of voluntary nonsuit: 3 S.E.2d 801, 191 S.C. 159. As to where there is no prejudice to Defendant, Plaintiff'sright to a nonsuit, if it exists, is absolute: 60 F.2d 830; 82 S.E.2d 609. As to the contemplation of the institutionof another suit not constituting prejudice to thedefendant: 82 S.C. 12, 62 S.E. 1116; 59 S.E.2d 645; 82 S.E.2d 609; 71 S.E.2d 311, 221 S.C. 522. Messrs. Lindsay Lindsay, of Bennettsville, RobertMcC. Figg, Jr., of Charleston, for Respondent Gulf Oil Corporation, and Tison Tison, of Bennettsville, and Willcox,Hardee, Houck Palmer, of Florence, for RespondentsL.E. Hassinger and C.L. McCormac, doing business underthe partnership name of Hassinger McCormac, FrankSkipper and Walter Jacobs, cite: As to a long establishedrule that granting of nonsuit is within discretion of TrialJudge and Supreme Court will not consider an appeal unlessthere is a clear abuse of such discretion: 152 S.E. 176, 155 S.C. 179; 38 S.E.2d 255, 208 S.C. 421; 7 S.E.2d 519, 193 S.C. 1; 3 S.E.2d 801, 191 S.C. 159; 59 S.E.2d 645, 217 S.C. 77; 62 S.E. 1116, 82 S.C. 12; 69 S.E.2d 598, 221 S.C. 183; 71 S.E.2d 311, 221 S.C. 522.

e involved, inthe granting of a voluntary nonsuit, as to constitute anabuse of discretion on the part of the trial court: 217 S.C. 77, 59 S.E.2d 645; 228 S.C. 606, 91 S.E.2d 321. As to Appellant being entitled, as a matter of law, to anadjudication in its favor: 235 S.C. 452, 112 S.E.2d 241; 238 F.2d 549; 8 Appleman Insurance Law and Practice, 148, Sec. 4784; 327 F.2d 11; 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430; 177 F. Supp. 944. As toproper definition of words "steal" and "stolen": Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary; 338 F.2d 787; 341 F.2d 696. As to the criteria for theestablishment of a prima facie case against an insurer: 233 S.C. 266, 104 S.E.2d 394. Messrs. Anderson Chapman, of Anderson, for Respondent, cite: As to plaintiff being entitled to a voluntary nonsuiteven after a trial has proceeded to the point that the defendantis entitled to adjudication in its favor: 242 S.C. 287, 130 S.E.2d 695; 228 S.C. 606, 91 S.E.2d 321; 248 S.C. 37, 148 S.E.2d 736; 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311; 229 S.C. 329, 92 S.E.2d 847; 225 S.C. 384, 82 S.E.2d 609; 221 S.C. 183, 69 S.E.2d 598. As to appellant not being entitled, as a matter oflaw, to an adjudication in its favor: 234 S.C. 291, 108 S.E.2d 86; 222 S.C. 185, 72 S.E.2d 165; 238 F.2d 549. February 9, 1967.

Allen v. Atlanta Charlotte Air Line R. Co., 216 S.C. 188, 57 S.E.2d 249, 23 A.L.R.2d 657; S. c., 218 S.C. 291, 62 S.E.2d 507. Kay v. Meadors (1950), 216 S.C. 483, 58 S.E.2d 893; Moore v. Southern Coatings Chemical Co. (1952) (S.C.), 71 S.E.2d 311. In the second Allen case, supra, it is said that "Manifestly, not only does a voluntarily nonsuit terminate the case as a procedural matter; it also wipes the slate clean of all rulings made in the course of the trial resulting in the nonsuit."

Messrs. Larkin H. Jennings, Jr. of Union, and Robinson,McFadden Moore, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the trial Judge erring in refusing to permit thejury to consider the authenticity of the signature of theguaranty agreement: 117 S.C. 291, 109 S.E. 102; 33 S.C. 116, 11 S.E. 636; 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Secs. 926-930; 62 S.C. 240, 40 S.E. 554; 89 S.C. 347, 71 S.E. 969. As to the trialJudge erring in refusing Appellant's motion for a voluntarynonsuit without prejudice: 242 S.C. 287, 131 S.E.2d 695; Smith's Reports, April 2, 1966, pp. 7, 8; 225 S.C. 384, 82 S.E.2d 609; 233 S.C. 297, 104 S.E.2d 374; 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311; 221 S.C. 183, 69 S.E.2d 598. As to the trial Judge erring in permitting a witnessto refuse to answer questions on the ground of possibleself-incrimination: 187 S.C. 1, 196 S.E. 164; 1 Spears 128; 2 Knott McCord 13; 58 Am. Jur. 71, Witnesses; 98 C.J. S., Witnesses, Secs. 435-437, 454. As to trial Judge erring infailing to grant judgment N.O.V., or a new trial, on theground that Appellant was entitled to judgment as a matterof law under the uncontroverted testimony: 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486; 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667; 243 S.C. 45, 132 S.E.2d 7; 243 S.C. 376, 133 S.E.2d 833; 244 S.C. 365, 137 S.E.2d 276; 122 S.C. 43, 114 S.E. 702. As to the trial Judge erring in refusing tostrike certain portions of the answer of a respondent as shamand irrelevant: 242 S.C. 237, 130 S.E.2d 573; 241 S.C. 394, 128 S.E.2d 697; 230 S.C. 552, 96 S.E.2d 661; 236 S.C. 487, 115 S.E.2d 68; 238 S.C. 210, 119 S.E.2d 742; 225 S.C. 476, 83 S.E.2d 159; 226 S.C. 214, 84 S.E.2d 554. Messrs. Long Long and Jolly

Messrs. Thomas E. McCutchen and D. Reece Williams,III, of Columbia, G.H. Kearse, of Allendale, and RandolphMurdaugh, of Hampton, for Appellant, cite: As to Appellantbeing entitled to a dismissal without prejudice prior tojoinder of the issues where there was no showing of legalprejudice: 242 S.C. 287, 130 S.E.2d 695; 233 S.C. 297, 104 S.E.2d 374; 228 S.C. 606, 91 S.E.2d 321; 221 S.C. 183, 69 S.E.2d 598; 82 S.C. 12, 62 S.E. 1116; Anno. 1 A.L.R. 3d 711; 17 Am. Jur., Dismissal, Sec. 4; 229 S.C. 329, 92 S.E.2d 847; 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311. Messrs. James H. Fowles, Jr., and Clarkson McCants, of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to where legal prejudiceresults to a defendant, a plaintiff will not be alloweda voluntary nonsuit or a discontinuance: 191 S.C. 159, 3 S.E.2d 801; 217 S.C. 77, 59 S.E.2d 645.

14, 24 L.Ed. 565; 42 Am. Jur., Process, Sec. 70; 42 Am. Jur., Process, Sec. 66; 5A Am.Jur., Automobiles, Sec. 862. As to the Master's order fordiscovery should have been completely rescinded, or drasticallymodified, by the trial Judge for protection of Appellant: 180 S.C. 863, 195 S.E. 863; 185 S.C. 87, 193 S.E. 203; 193 S.C. 142, 7 S.E.2d 857; 115 S.C. 443, 106 S.E. 224; 193 S.C. 468, 8 S.E.2d 875; 224 S.C. 201, 78 S.E.2d 237; 237 S.C. 411, 117 S.E.2d 567; 232 S.C. 274, 101 S.E.2d 821. As to what is a "fishingexpedition": 17 Words and Phrases 132. Isadore S. Bernstein, Esq., of Columbia, for Respondents, cites: As to the writ in discovery issued by the Master inEquity, and affirmed by Circuit Judge, being proper andnot too broad in scope: 237 S.C. 411, 117 S.E.2d 567; 231 S.C. 549, 99 S.E.2d 391; 236 S.C. 101, 113 S.E.2d 345. As to the order appealed from being an interlocutoryorder and is not appealable at this stage of the case: 68 S.C. 494, 47 S.E. 686; 201 S.C. 32, 21 S.E.2d 209; 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311. As to the previousinterlocutory orders not being properly before the SupremeCourt: 243 S.C. 309, 133 S.E.2d 824. November 5, 1965.

f the cases last cited, not only allows, but requires, that the artificial distinction should be abolished, and that the rule of practice in equity making discontinuance to depend on the discretion of the court should be applied to legal actions. Section 453 provides: `Generally in all matters in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law, with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.'" Material or legal prejudice may not be deduced from the fact that the granting of the motion for nonsuit would impose upon the defendant the necessity of defending another suit which may be within contemplation of the plaintiff, State of South Carolina v. Southern Ry. Co.,supra; Brown v. Palmetto Baking Co., 221 S.C. 183, 69 S.E.2d 598; 27 C.J.S., Dismissal and Nonsuit, § 26, p. 183; Wildhagen v. Ayers, 225 S.C. 384, 82 S.E.2d 609; Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Habis, 4 Cir., 90 F.2d 842; Moorev. Southern Coatings Chemical Co., 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311. The recent case of Caulder v. Skipper, 228 S.C. 606, 91 S.E.2d 321, 323 states the true rule as being that "a voluntary nonsuit should be granted in the absence of a showing of legal prejudice to the defendants, and the discretion of the hearing Judge thereabout is brought to play only upon a showing that legal prejudice would result from the granting of the motion for a nonsuit."

It states that the hearing was on the motion for nonsuit, recites failure of compliance with the former order requiring service of an amended complaint and proceeds to order that the complaint be stricken out, citing Jordan v. State Highway Department, 188 S.C. 83, 198 S.E. 174. Error is obvious; there was no motion by defendant for dismissal of the complaint and the only matter before the court was appellants' motion for nonsuit. There was also error in the refusal of it. The law relating to the right of a plaintiff to take a voluntary nonsuit, and the effect of it, was reviewed in the recent case of Moore v. Southern Coatings Chemical Co., 221 S.C. 522, 71 S.E.2d 311. There we referred to A.L.R. annotations which contain digests of our leading pertinent decisions. Cases subsequent to the annotations are cited in the opinion in the Moore case. It affirmed the granting of an order of voluntary nonsuit at the close of the evidence in that action at law and over the opposition of the defendant.