Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East
| Citation | 316 S.E.2d 368,281 S.C. 442 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22094,22094 |
| Parties | Lilian L. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. GREYHOUND LINES EAST, Respondent. . Heard |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
William F. Able, Columbia, for appellant.
George E. Lewis, Columbia, for respondent.
On November 30, 1973, Greyhound Lines East, Defendant-Respondent, discharged Lillian L. Hamilton, Plaintiff-Appellant. On June 11, 1979, Appellant instituted this action seeking damages for breach of an employment agreement, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This appeal is from an order of the trial judge granting an involuntary non-suit without prejudice and from a second order refusing to set aside that order. We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant's original attorney surrendered his license to practice law shortly before a pre-trial conference scheduled for January 7, 1981. After the pre-trial conference, at which appellant was not represented by counsel, the trial judge issued an order on January 12, 1981, granting Respondent's motion for an involuntary non-suit without prejudice and giving Appellant thirty days to petition the court to set aside the order.
Appellant timely petitioned the court to set aside the order. A hearing was held on March 11, 1981, at which Appellant appeared pro se and fully argued her position. The trial judge refused to set aside the order of January 12. It was not until this time that counsel, now representing Appellant, was employed. This appeal followed.
The appealing party has the burden of furnishing a sufficient record from which this court can make an intelligent review. Germain v. Nichol, 278 S.C. 508, 299 S.E.2d 335 (1983). Appellant has failed to carry this burden. There simply is nothing before us from which we could conclude that the trial court should be reversed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Litchfield Co. of South Carolina, Inc. v. Kiriakides, 0801
...had the burden, as appellants, of furnishing this court an adequate record to permit review of this point. Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East, 281 S.C. 442, 316 S.E.2d 368 (1984). Messrs. Kiriakides, who sought court determination that the lease had been breached, also had the burden of showi......
-
Woodson v. Dli Props., LLC
...appellate review and make a decision on the merits. See Quail Hill, 387 S.C. at 234, 692 S.E.2d at 505;Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines E., 281 S.C. 442, 444, 316 S.E.2d 368, 369 (1984) (stating the appealing party has the burden of providing a sufficient record such that the appellate court can......
-
Town of Winnsboro v. Wiedeman-Singleton, Inc.
...to include in the record all that is necessary for this court to resolve the issues presented on appeal. Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East, 281 S.C. 442, 316 S.E.2d 368 (1984); Cogdill v. Watson, 289 S.C. 531, 347 S.E.2d 126 (Ct.App.1986). Without knowing the date the amended reply was filed......
-
Crestwood Golf Club, Inc. v. Potter
...the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient Record to review his assertions of error. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East, 281 S.C. 442, 316 S.E.2d 368 (1984); see also Rule 209(h), SCACR ("Except as provided by Rule 211 and Rule 207(b)(1)(D) and (2), the appellate court wi......