Ex parte White

Citations

• 33 S.C. 442
• 12 S.E. 5
• 1890 S.C. LEXIS 157

Syllabus

<p>1. Pending an appeal in the Circuit Court from a decree of the Probate Court refusing to revoke letters of administration previously granted, the presiding judge, without hearing the case on appeal, granted a motion remanding the cause to the probate judge for further hearing, with leave to take further testimony upon a question of fact. Tie Id, that this order was erroneous, because the matter being originally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court, the Court of Common Pleas had only appellate jurisdiction, and was limited to a review of the case as developed in the court below, no application having been made to the Circuit Court for the trial of any issue by a jury.</p> <p>2. This order was not an order for a new trial in the Probate Court, and if so, it was erroneous, because made without a hearing of the case on appeal.</p> <p>3. Twitty v. Houser, 7 S. C., 153, overruled upon this point. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overrule a former decision which is clearly erroneous and likely to lead to evil results, especially where it establishes no rule of property and is not otherwise entitled to be adhered to under the wholesome doctrine of stare decisis.</p> <p>4. Where it is the duty of the Circuit Court to hear an appeal, an order remanding’ the cause for further testimony, without such hearing, denies to the appellant a substantial right, and is therefore appealable.</p>