Godley v. Uniroyal Inc., GMC-IM

Decision Date17 January 1983
Docket NumberGMC-IM,I
Citation300 S.E.2d 78,278 S.C. 571
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesDavid Lamar GODLEY, Respondent, v. UNIROYAL INC., General Motors Corporation and Sweat Pontiac-Buick-nc., Defendants, of whom General Motors Corporation and Sweat Pontiac-Buick-nc., are Appellants.

Ladson F. Howell, of Howell, Barnes, Bowers & Gibson, Beaufort, and Richard B. Watson, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellants.

J. Robert Peters, Jr., of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, Hampton, for respondent.

Wade H. Logan, III, of Holmes, Thomson, Logan & Cantrell, Charleston, for defendants.

ORDER

This matter is currently before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellants appealed from a circuit court order denying their motion for a change of venue.

It is generally held that an order granting or refusing a change of venue is interlocutory and therefore not immediately appealable. See 4 C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 115(a) (1957). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

This order is to be published with the opinions of this Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 6, 2000
    ...trial court's decision. We even have had the issue presented by this case previously litigated in this Court. See Godley v. Uniroyal, Inc., 278 S.C. 571, 300 S.E.2d 78 (1983).2 Already the progress of this case has been delayed several years over the issue of venue. Requiring a defendant to......
  • Sanders v. Amoco Oil Co., Inc., 0275
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 1984
    ...convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice mandated the change. This case is controlled by the holdings in Godley v. Uniroyal, Inc., 278 S.C. 571, 300 S.E.2d 78 (1983) and Lewis v. Atkinson Implement Co., Inc., 280 S.C. 87, 311 S.E.2d 80 (S.C.App.1983). Accordingly the trial court's o......
  • Lewis v. Atkinson Implement Co., Inc., 0019
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 1983
    ...was a sham defendant for venue purposes. This case is controlled by Godley v. Uniroyal, Inc., 278 S.C. 571, 300 S.E.2d 78 (1983). In Godley, the appellants appealed from a circuit court order denying their motion for a change of venue. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that an ......

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