First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, Inc.

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, Inc., 418 S.E.2d 545, 308 S.C. 421 (S.C. 1992)
• Decision Date: 26 May 1992
• Docket Number: No. 23663,23663
• Parties: FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent, v. HITMAN, INC., Mark D. Axler, Sherry A. Axler, NCNB South Carolina, Of whom Hitman, Inc., is Petitioner, and Chris Construction Company is, Intervenor.

Page 545

418 S.E.2d 545

308 S.C. 421

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent, v. HITMAN, INC., Mark D. Axler, Sherry A. Axler, NCNB South Carolina Of whom Hitman, Inc., is Petitioner and Chris Construction Company is, Intervenor.

No. 23663.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted April 20, 1992.

Decided May 26, 1992.

W. Brantley Harvey, Jr. and John M. Tatum, III, both of Harvey & Battey, P.A., Beaufort, for petitioner.

Edward E. Bullard, Hilton Head Island, for intervenor.

Russell P. Patterson, of Jones, Scheider & Patterson, P.A., Hilton Head Island, and E. Douglas Pratt-Thomas, of Wise and Cole, Charleston, for respondent.

George E. Mullen, Hilton Head Island, for NCNB South Carolina.

PER CURIAM:

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in First Union National Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, et al., --- S.C. ----, 411 S.E.2d 681 (Ct.App.1991). We affirm.

The sole question before us is whether a trial judge commits reversible error by issuing a written order which is in conflict with his prior oral ruling from the bench. We agree with the analysis of the Court of Appeals, and hold that a judge is not bound by the prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling. To the extent McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E.2d 338 (1983), is...