Muckenfuss v. Fishburne
Muckenfuss v. Fishburne
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This is an appeal from an order of Judge Townsend, dated March 13th, 1902, referring it to the master to take and report testimony in addition to the testimony previously taken and reported pursuant to an order of Judge Aldrich, dated February 13, 1901.
ter of this suit being also in Doixhester County, and the Court of Common Pleas for said cqunty had adjourned sine die, February 22d, 1902, and this cause was continued and the record for the above entitled cause being of file in the Court at Dorchester County.” The first difficulty in the way of this exception is that the “Case” does not show that the facts are as alleged in the exception. It appears that the matter of referring the cause to the master was submitted to Judge Townsend while he was holding Court in Dorchester County on the call of the case for trial. If, therefore, it be true that he made the order after the adjournment of the Court for Dorchester and while he was in Charleston, he had power to do so. Chaffin v. Rainey, 21 S. C., 18. Such an order may be made at chambers. Bank v. Fennell, 55 S. C., 379, 33 S. E., 485.
The exceptions are overruled, and the order appealed is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.