Ex parte Stevens, Stevens & Thomas, P. A., 21585

Decision Date12 October 1981
Docket NumberNo. 21585,21585
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesEx parte STEVENS, STEVENS & THOMAS, P. A., Respondent, In re William H. MORGAN, Appellant, v. Kenneth HONEYCUTT and Harriett Honeycutt, Defendants.

Burroughs, Green & Sasser, Conway, for appellant.

Carroll D. Padgett, Jr., Loris, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from circuit court Orders denying appellant's Demurrer and granting respondent judgment for $2,044.79. Appellant asserts he was denied his right to a jury trial. We disagree and affirm.

The respondent law firm represented appellant Morgan in a collection matter against Kenneth and Harriett Honeycutt. Default judgment was entered in 1978 against the Honeycutts in the sum of $6,132.21. In 1980, the Honeycutts sought to satisfy the judgment and paid the monies into the Clerk of Court for Horry County. Prior to disbursement of the funds, respondent petitioned the court to obtain its one-third attorneys' fees. Respondent did not institute a separate action for its fee but placed the issue before the court by a Rule to Show Cause.

Appellant testified he had been informed by the North Carolina attorney who had contacted respondent that James P. Stevens, Sr.'s fee for handling the collection would be $150.00 (Tr. p. 22). Appellant further stated, however, that when he went to respondent's office to verify the complaint, Mr. Stevens stated his fee would be one-third of any amount obtained from the Honeycutts. (Tr. pp. 23-24). Appellant testified he signed the verification after Mr. Stevens informed him his fee would be one-third of the amount collected. (Tr. pp. 24 and 31).

While a claim for professional services has been regarded as an action in contract entitling the parties to a jury trial, we now hold that an action for attorney's fees is one in equity.

Moreover, the undisputed facts here reveal appellant was aware of the fee arrangement prior to verifying his Complaint. While silence alone is not regarded as acceptance, conduct which manifests assent to the offeror is acceptance. See Shealy v. Fowler, 182 S.C. 81, 188 S.E. 499 (1937); Moore v. Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 222 S.C. 492, 73 S.E.2d 688 (1952).

We conclude this was a matter in equity and appellant was not entitled to a jury trial. Accordingly, the trial court's orders are affirmed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Dent v. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • December 28, 1995
    ...(4th Cir.1981) (Fourth Circuit interpreting South Carolina law on award of attorneys' fees.). See also, Ex Parte Stevens, Stevens & Thomas, P.A., 277 S.C. 150, 283 S.E.2d 444 (1981). The court finds that the most appropriate way to determine the reasonableness of attorneys' fees is to do so......
  • Laidlaw Environmental Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 18, 1996
    ...to South Carolina law, conduct manifesting assent constitutes acceptance of the offered terms. See Ex parte Stevens, Stevens & Thomas, 277 S.C. 150, 283 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1981) (per curiam). Thus, compliance with the proffered terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of an offer, see Davi......
  • Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. McCarthy Improvement Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 29, 2020
    ...to be expressed in words, then acceptance can be inferred from acts and conduct that manifest acceptance. See Ex parte Stevens, Stevens & Thomas, P.A., 283 S.E.2d 444 (S.C. 1981), overruled on other grounds by Lester v. Dawson, 491 S.E.2d 240, reh'g den. (Oct. 10, 1997); see also Sadighi v.......
  • Love v. Gamble
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1994
    ...contract, the conduct must demonstrate the parties' mutual assent to all essential terms of the contract); see also Morgan v. Honeycutt, 277 S.C. 150, 283 S.E.2d 444 (1981) (silence alone is not conduct constituting acceptance of an offer to The Loves admitted they never specifically discus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT