Burnett v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 18915,18915 |
| Citation | 167 S.E.2d 571,252 S.C. 568 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Betty Lewis BURNETT, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Ben T. DeBerry, Columbia, William M. Wilson, Camden, for appellant.
West, Holland & Furman, Frank E. Rector, Camden, for respondent.
The question to be decided is whether the lower court had the authority to permit a landowner, against whom the State Highway Department had instituted condemnation proceedings, to file an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the Board of Condemnation after the statutory time limit for appeal had expired.
The statutes grant to the State Highway Department the authority to condemn lands for highway purposes and prescribe the procedure to be followed. Section 33--121 et seq., 1962 Code of Laws, as amended. The initial determination of the amount to be paid by the Department for lands so acquired is made by a Board of Condemnation which is required to make its finding by resolution. This resolution must then be served upon the landowner who has a right of appeal from such decision to the Court of Common Pleas. Section 33--139 provides that such 'notice and grounds of appeal shall be served by mail or otherwise upon the Department within twenty days after the receipt of the resolution of the condemnation board.' This section contemplates a written notice of appeal. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Wessinger, 235 S.C. 239, 111 S.E.2d 13.
Proceedings were instituted in this case for the acquisition of property of the landowner and, after a hearing, a resolution of the Board of Condemnation was duly served upon him, setting forth the amount awarded as compensation. The landowner did not serve a written notice and grounds of appeal from the decision of the Board within twenty days after the receipt of the resolution, as required by Section 33--139, supra, but attempted to do so after the statutory time limit had elapsed. He claimed the right to file a late appeal because of alleged excusable neglect. The lower court held that excusable neglect had been shown and permitted the appeal to be filed.
The effect of the order of the lower court was to extend the time for taking an appeal from a decision of the Board of Condemnation. The court exceeded its authority in so doing. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Spann, 239 S.C. 437, 123 S.E.2d 648....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...judgment within the statutory period necessitated dismissal of their appeal for want of jurisdiction); Burnett v. South Carolina State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969) (stating that without a timely notice of appeal, the reviewing court has no jurisdiction); Canal Ins. Co.......
-
Canal Ins. Co. v. Caldwell
...the appeal. First Carolina Nat'l Bank v. A & S Enterprises, Inc., 272 S.C. 339, 251 S.E.2d 762 (1979); Burnett v. South Carolina State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969). When a timely motion to alter or amend is made, however, "the time for appeal for all parties shall be s......
-
Howard v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't & Workforce
... Antonio C. Howard, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, ... S.C. State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Hernandez v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't & Workforce
... 1 Eddy A. Hernandez, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce ... 240, 460 S.E.2d 392 (1995); Burnett ... v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C ... ...