Aultman v. Salinas

Citations

• 44 S.C. 299
• 22 S.E. 465
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 95

Syllabus

<p>1. Law Case — Jury Trial — Waiver.—An action for tbe recovery of real property is an action at law triable by jury, but a jury trial having been waived in writing, it was properly tried by the court.</p> <p>2. Appeal. — A question not raised on Circuit is not properly before this court on appeal.</p> <p>3. New Trial — Further Testimony.— Where an action at law, triable by the judge without a jury by consent of parties, is remanded by the Supreme Court for a new trial of an issue raised by the pleadings, but not passed upon by the Circuit Judge, there was no error in trying such issue at the new trial on Circuit on the testimony already taken in the cause, and not de novo, the Circuit Judge stating that he would receive further testimony if, in the progress of the trial, it appeared to him that additional testimony should be received.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Where the Supreme Court remanded a case “to the Circuit Court for the purpose of hearing and determining the question of homestead,” the Circuit Judge correctly held this direction to be mandatory, subject to further testimony on the matter of homestead, if proper; and counsel should have offered such additional testimony if they wanted it.</p> <p>5. Law Case — Findings op Fact by the Circuit Judge in a law case tried by him by consent of parties, cannot be reviewed on appeal.</p> <p>6. Homestead — Damages.—In holding that plaintiff could recover only two-thirds damages for real property worth §3,250, withheld from'him by the defendant, because §1,000 thereof, as homestead of the grantor of defendant, could not be recovered by plaintiff, there was do error committed; exactness of figures will not be required in such cases.</p> <p>7. Ibid. — Fraud as to Creditors.. — A house and lot conveyed away by the head of a family in fraud of his creditors is a valid conveyance to the extent of his homestead right therein, that not being subject to the claims of creditors.</p> <p>8.’ Ibid. — Removal prom State — Case Crit