Davis v. Satterfield Const. Co., Inc., 19927
| Citation | 210 S.E.2d 596,263 S.C. 356 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19927,19927 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | Ava B. DAVIS, Respondent, v. SATTERFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant. and J. L. BROWN, Respondent, v. SATTERFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant (two cases). |
Jefferies & Wise, Greenwood, for appellant.
Jennings & Jennings, Bishopville, for respondents.
Satterfield Construction Company, Inc., the appellant herein, had a contract, File No. 31.317, with the South Carolina State Highway Department for the construction of a section of Interstate Highway 20 through Lee County, South Carolina. In connection with the grading of the highway it was necessary for the appellant to have borrow pits from which earth could be taken for use in making the fills or constructing and maintaining the embankments of the road.
It appears that on January 27, 1970, the appellant executed separate written instruments with Ava B. Davis and J. L. Brown, the respondents herein, concerning the use of material from their lands. We quote in full the instrument executed between the appellant and Ava B. Davis.
'(I) (we) the undersigned do agree to sell to Satterfield Construction Company, Inc., P.O. Drawer 279, Greenwood, South Carolina Borrow Pit material from lands being owned by (me) (us) and described as follows: Being in Lee County South Carolina, west of Interstate Highway I--20 adjacent to highway right-of-way and approximately between survey stations 1559 and 50 and 1562 and 28.
1. Satterfield Construction Company, Inc., agrees to use all of material remaining on west side of I--20. To be approximately seven (7) acres--more or less.
2. Satterfield Construction Company, Inc. to pay Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per acre.
3. Debris to be placed on land of owner.
4. Satterfield Construction Company, Inc. to have right-of-way through lands of owner for haul road--most practical route.
5. To have and to hold until completion of File No. 31.317 6. Depth to be determined by Satterfield Construction Company, Inc.
7. Property lines to be established by property owners.
/s/ J. L. BROWN.'
The instrument executed by the appellant with J. L. Brown was essentially the same as that above quoted but had to do with a borrow pit containing eight acres more or less.
Each of the respondents instituted an action against the appellant alleging that the agreement signed by the parties was a contract whereby the appellant agreed to buy and the respondents agreed to sell material from their respective tracts of land for the sum of $300.00 per acre. They further alleged the substantial completion by the appellant of its contract with the South Carolina State Highway Department and the failure to comply with the terms of the contracts made by it with the respondents. It is further alleged that the appellant has breached the respective contracts with each of the respondents, resulting in damage to Davis in the sum of $2100, and to Brown in the sum of $2400.
The appellant, answering the complaints, admitted the execution of the documents hereinbefore described but alleged that such were options to purchase which it never exercised and demanded that the complaints be dismissed.
Each of the respondents, pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44, moved before the Honorable Dan F. Laney, Jr., Resident Judge, for summary judgment based upon the ground that the documents sued upon were admitted by the appellant. The appellant also moved for a summary judgment on the ground that the documents referred to in the complaints were options to purchase rather than contracts for the sale and purchase of borrow pit material. No affidavits were submitted by either party.
The motions of the parties to these actions were heard by the resident judge, and on September 15, 1973, he issued his orders holding that the documents sued upon were binding bilateral contracts, and the appellant had not complied with the provisions thereof. He further held that the appellant had breached its contracts with the respondents and ordered judgment in their favor. The appellant duly served notice of intention to appeal.
The appellant charges error on the part of the trial judge in holding that there was no material issue of fact and that the agreement in question was, as a matter of law, a contract of purchase and sale.
Circuit Court Rule 44 permits the granting of summary judgment where the showing before the court establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. However, the trial judge should deny summary judgment where there is a genuine issue as to any material fact. Spencer v. Miller, 259 S.C. 453, 192 S.E.2d 863.
The record fails to show that the appellant made any objection to the case being heard and disposed of on a motion for summary judgment. The orders of the trial judge do not indicate that the appellant asserted that genuine issues of material fact existed. The respondents, in their brief, make the unchallenged statement that 'at no time before the Circuit Court did either party contend that any issues of fact existed that should be determined by a jury.' It clearly appears from the pleadings that the only matter to be determined was the construction of the written documents in question. In effect both parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the court should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Truck South, Inc. v. Patel
...A trial judge should deny summary judgment where there is a genuine issue as to any material fact. Davis v. Satterfield Construction Co., 263 S.C. 356, 210 S.E.2d 596 (1974). On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the appellate court will review all ambiguities, conclusions, and......
-
South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Metts
...issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Davis v. Satterfield Construction Company, 263 S.C. 356, 210 S.E.2d 596. We find no dispute in the material facts and conclude that the trial judge properly granted summary The right of way......
-
Siemers v. Commissioner
...wording added to that form by the parties in paragraphs three through seven must take precedent. Davis v. Satterfield Construction Co., Inc., 263 S.C. 356, 210 S.E. 2d 596 (1974); American Nat. Bank of Winter Haven, Fla. v. Caldwell, 166 S.C. 194, 164 S.E. 613 (1932). These additions treat ......
-
Ringer v. Graham
...could have been working as an employee of the Ringers rather than as an independent contractor. Cf., Davis v. Satterfield Const. Co., Inc., 263 S.C. 356, 210 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1974). ("The nature of a contract ... is to be determined not by the name which the parties have given it, but by th......