Jones v. A. H. Williams & Co., 77 S.E. 710 (S.C. 1913). · Go Syfert
Search
Jones v. A. H. Williams & Co., 77 S.E. 710 (S.C. 1913). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle (wawd, 2020-10-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1916 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1916 1971 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle
W.D. Wash. · 2020 · confidence medium
XIV, § 1. “‘Equal protection’ . . . 14 emphasizes disparity in treatment by a State between classes of individuals whose 15 situations are arguably indistinguishable.” Ross v. Moffit, 417 U.S. 600, 609 , 94 S. Ct. 16 2437, 41 L.
discussed Cited "see" Robert Mata v. George W. Sumner, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin (2×)
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Baxter, 492 F.2d 150, 172 (9th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 801 , 94 S.Ct. 16 , 38 L.Ed.2d 38 (1973), 416 U.S. 940 , 94 S.Ct. 1945 , 40 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974)." Excerpt of Record at 95-96.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Robert Almonte, United States of America v. Michael P. Ricapito, Joseph F. Corrigan, Jr.
1st Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Baxter, 492 F.2d 150, 175 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 940 , 94 S.Ct. 16 , 38 L.Ed.2d 38 (1974).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Pacific Southwest Airlines, 358 F.Supp. 1224 (C.D.Cal.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 801 , 94 S.Ct. 16 , 38 L.Ed.2d 38 (1973) (state approval of airline merger does not immunize merger from antitrust attack).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jones
v.
A. H. Williams & Co.
8457.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Mar 15, 1913.
77 S.E. 710
Mr. Walter Hazard , for appellants, cites: The application is untimely and plaintiff is guilty of laches: 36 Cyc. 695; 14 S.C. 434 ; 21 Ency. P. . P. 53; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 60; Dan. Ch. Pr. 1523; 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 398; Story Eq. Pl., sec. 3380; 45 Fed.R. 299, 695; 57 Barb. 582; 41 N.J. Eq. 407 ; 47 S.C. 190 ; 31 Cyc. 501; 60 S.C. 477 ; 60 S.C. 135 , 477 ; 21 Ency. P. P. (c). Order was error of law: 5 S.C. 450 . Plaintiff did not act in good faith, and granting motion was abuse of discretion: 16 Cyc. 444; 38 S.C. 228 ; 21 Ency. P. P. 61. Supplemental complaint sets up a different case not in aid of original action: 14 S.C. 434 ; 3 Strob. 190; 21 Ency. P. P. 20-1; 31 Cyc, 503. Messrs. Willcox Willcox and Henry E. Davis , contra, cite: Filing a supplemental complaint is within discretion of Circuit Judge: 60 S.C. 135 ; 28 S.C. 172 .
Gary.
Published

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order granting to the plaintiff, leave to file a supplemental complaint.

The rule governing appeals in such cases, is thus stated in Copeland v. Copeland, 60 S. C. 135, 38 S. E. 269: “Since a supplemental pleading is in the nature of an amendment to the pleading, sought to be supplemented, the same rule should, in reason, apply, and must apply, if as stated in Moon v. Johnson, supra, the matter rests in the discretion of the Court. As stated by acting Associate Justice Benet, in Norris v. Clinkscales, 47 S. C. 498, ‘The Courts and text writers all concur, that by judicial discretion is meant sound discretion, guided by fixed legal principles. It must not be arbitrary nor capricious, but must be regulated upon legal grounds — grounds that will make it judicial. It must be controlled by conscience and not by humor.’ In an appeal from the exercise of this discretion, this Court will not examine the evidence, with a view to substitute its judgment, as to its weight and sufficiency for that of the Judge, to whose discretion the matter is submitted. We merely[*18] examine the evidence, with a view to' ascertain whether there was abuse of discretion; that is, whether the Court’s action was based upon his view of the evidence, or absence of evidence, or was but an arbitrary or capricious exercise of will, and without regard to. the evidence.”

The appellant has failed to satisfy this Court, that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge.

Appeal dismissed.