From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandel v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 13, 1924
140 S.C. 51 (S.C. 1924)

Summary

In Sandel v. State, 140 S.C. 51, 133 S.E., 709, this Court, in very short order, disposed of an appeal, and there Mr. Justice Cothran said: "The exceptions raise only questions which have already been raised, considered, and decided by the Court en banc, and are res adjudicata."

Summary of this case from Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co.

Opinion

11510

May 13, 1924.

Before BONHAM, J., Richland. Affirmed.

Action by J. O'Neal Sandel, as administrator, against the State. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Messrs. Graydon Graydon, for appellant.

Messrs. S.M. Wolfe and Alva M. Lumpkin, for respondent.


May 13, 1924. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, after the case had been remanded to the Circuit Court for a new trial, under the opinion reported in 126 S.C. 1; 119 S.E., 776. The exceptions raise only questions which have already been raised, considered, and decided by the Court en banc, and are res adjudicata.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES WATTS, FRASER and MARION concur.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY did not participate.


Summaries of

Sandel v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 13, 1924
140 S.C. 51 (S.C. 1924)

In Sandel v. State, 140 S.C. 51, 133 S.E., 709, this Court, in very short order, disposed of an appeal, and there Mr. Justice Cothran said: "The exceptions raise only questions which have already been raised, considered, and decided by the Court en banc, and are res adjudicata."

Summary of this case from Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co.
Case details for

Sandel v. State

Case Details

Full title:SANDEL v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: May 13, 1924

Citations

140 S.C. 51 (S.C. 1924)
133 S.E. 709

Citing Cases

Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co.

Not a thing was said in that opinion as to the former judgment of the Court being only an interlocutory…