Graham v. Kerns
| Decision Date | 19 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21756,21756 |
| Citation | 278 S.C. 197,294 S.E.2d 38 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Barbara L. GRAHAM, Respondent, v. Andrew V. KERNS, Jr., Appellant. |
Ellis Merritt, Jr., of Louthian & Merritt, Columbia, for appellant.
Pope D. Johnson, III, of Whaley, McCutchen & Blanton, Columbia, for respondent.
This is a contract action. Testimony concerning an installment contract was heard by a master who found appellant owed respondent $15,618.67. The master's findings were affirmed by the circuit court and judgment entered against appellant. This appeal is from entry of the judgment. We affirm.
Appellant made three exceptions to the circuit court's entry of judgment: (1) The judge erred in affirming the findings and conclusions in the report of the Master-in-Equity, dated December 19, 1979; (2) The judge erred in overruling the exceptions of the appellant; (3) The judge erred in ordering that judgment be entered against the appellant in the amount of $15,618.67. All three exceptions are general in nature and, therefore, violate Rule 4, § 6 of the Rules of Practice of this Court. Since the exceptions point out no particular error of law or fact, this Court would be required to re-try the entire case. Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 179, 255 S.E.2d 449 (1979); Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). See also Burroughs v. Royal Arcadian Resorts, Smith's Advance Sheets of October 31, 1981.
Nevertheless, we have considered appellant's argument and find it without merit. The entry of judgment and order of the lower court are, therefore, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of South Carolina
...dismissed and why the UTPA should not have been charged. See Germain v. Nichol, 278 S.C. 508, 299 S.E.2d 335 (1983); Graham v. Kerns, 278 S.C. 197, 294 S.E.2d 38 (1982). An appellate court is left to "grope in the dark", searching the entire record to ascertain the issue being raised. See S......
-
Ag-Chem Equipment Co., Inc. v. Daggerhart
...to the special referee. Our Supreme Court has said that such an exception is defective and need not be considered. Graham v. Kerns, 278 S.C. 197, 294 S.E.2d 38 (1982); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976); Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). Exception Num......