Eagle Const. Co., Inc. v. Richland Const. Co., Inc.
| Citation | 264 S.C. 71,212 S.E.2d 580 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 19971,19971 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | EAGLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. RICHLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and Glen Falls Insurance Company, Appellants. |
Page 580
v.
RICHLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and Glen Falls
Insurance Company, Appellants.
[264 S.C. 72] George M. Lee, Jr., of Calvo, Lee, Whitener & Graves, Columbia, for appellants.
Richard M. Kenan, Newberry, for respondent.
LEWIS, Justice:
This is an appeal from an order granting the motion of plaintiff-respondent for summary judgment.
Respondent, Eagle Construction Company, Inc., brought this action to recover the
Page 581
balance allegedly due it under a written subcontract with appellant, Richland Construction Company, Inc. The subcontract was entered into between [264 S.C. 73] respondent and appellant on January 6, 1971, under which respondent agreed to perform certain services and labor and provide materials in connection with a building project undertaken by appellant, as the prime contractor, for the Union County School Board. The subcontract called for grading, clearing, grubbing, stripping and stockpiling topsoil, spreading the topsoil, dressing with grader, handling the engineering and layout for site work, and installation of the storm drain system, for which respondent was to receive $32,000.00.Subsequently respondent was paid $26,360.30, leaving an alleged balance under the above subcontract in the amount of $5,639.70. This action was brought to recover the above balance. Appellant filed an answer denying that it owed the respondent any additional amount, because of the failure of respondent to properly perform its obligations under the subcontract, and filed a counterclaim for the sum of $18,000.00 as damages for such failure to perform. A reply was filed by respondent denying the allegations of the counterclaim.
Respondent thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there existed no genuine issue of fact between the parties and that respondent was entitled to such relief as a matter of law. The motion was based upon the pleadings, the depositions of Mr. Winegard, the owner of appellant, and Mr. Shannon, chairman of its board, and an affidavit of the president of respondent. The lower court granted the motion, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
Circuit Court Rule 44, governing the granting of summary judgment, provides in part:
'The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and depositions, together with the affidavits, if any, show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n
...summary judgment. Title Insurance Company v. Christian, 267 S.C. 71, 226 S.E.2d 240 (1976); Eagle Construction Company, Inc., v. Richland Const. Company, Inc., 264 S.C. 71, 74, 212 S.E.2d 580 (1975). In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Marine Contracting and Towing Co., 301 S.C. 418, 392 S.E.2d 46......
-
Wells v. City of Lynchburg
...to the non-moving party. Koester v. Carolina Rental Ctr., Inc., 313 S.C. 490, 443 S.E.2d 392 (1994); Eagle Constr. Co. v. Richland Constr. Co., 264 S.C. 71, 212 S.E.2d 580 (1975). I. South Carolina Tort Claims Act The common law doctrine of sovereign immunity was abolished by the South Caro......
-
Ray v. South Carolina Nat. Bank, Inc.
...in and from the evidence must be construed most strongly against the movant for summary judgment. Eagle Construction Co. v. Richland Construction Co., 264 S.C. 71, 212 S.E.2d 580 (1975); William v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 The Circuit Judge ruled that the notes ......
-
Merritt v. Smith
...judgment. Title Insurance Company of Minnesota v. Christian, 267 S.C. 71, 226 S.E.2d 240 (1976); Eagle Construction Co. v. Richland Construction Co., 264 S.C. 71, 212 S.E.2d 580 (1975). Appellant asserts two contested issues of fact: (1) whether both the deceased and respondent were employe......