Hatchell v. Jackson, 0806
| Decision Date | 18 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 0806,0806 |
| Citation | 290 S.C. 256,349 S.E.2d 407 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Robert HATCHELL, Appellant, v. Jo Ann JACKSON, Respondent. . Heard |
Edward V. Atkinson and Walter G. Newman, Atkinson, Davis & Newman, Sumter, for appellant.
J. Cabot Seth of Jones and Seth, Sumter, for respondent.
The appellant Robert Hatchell brought this action alleging fraud and deceit in connection with the sale of a restaurant by the respondent Jo Ann Jackson. Jackson counterclaimed alleging breach of the contract of sale. Hatchell appeals from the order of the circuit court granting Jackson summary judgment. The dispositive question on appeal concerns whether the pleadings and admissions on file entitled Jackson to summary judgment. We reverse.
Hatchell's complaint alleges that in March 1984 Jackson represented to Hatchell that she owned a six-month renewable lease on a restaurant in Sumter County known as the Country Kitchen, that this representation was false because Jackson's lease had expired and Jackson was operating under a month to month tenancy, that as a result of Jackson's misrepresentation Hatchell agreed to purchase the Country Kitchen for the sum of $7,000 and paid Jackson $3,700 down and $3,300 on March 28, 1984, that on March 30, 1984, the landlord gave Hatchell notice to vacate the premises and informed him that Jackson's lease was not "as she had represented" it, and that when he discovered Jackson's representation concerning her lease was false Hatchell demanded that Jackson return the $7,000 he had paid her for the property.
Jackson answered and counterclaimed. Her counterclaim alleges that Hatchell agreed to purchase the Country Kitchen for $7,000, that Jackson agreed to pay $3,700 down and the balance no later than April 11, 1984, and that Hatchell made the down payment but, in breach of the contract, refused to pay the balance despite her demand therefor.
Hatchell timely replied to the counterclaim, denying its allegations and reasserting in defense of the counterclaim his allegations of fraud.
Jackson subsequently served a request for admissions on Hatchell. The request asks Hatchell to admit that Jackson told him about "the potential problems with the lease," that she advised him "at the time that a lease ... may well be obtained by [Hatchell] from the landlord," that Hatchell attempted "to negotiate an agreement with [the landlord] concerning the lease," and that his negotiations with the landlord "went very poorly." The request also asks Hatchell to admit that he paid Jackson $3,700 pursuant to the contract, that Jackson conveyed the Country Kitchen to Hatchell, and that Hatchell failed to pay Jackson $3,300, the amount due on the contract.
Hatchell never responded to Jackson's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority
...for trial, regardless of whether the admission concerns a matter responded to in a party's pleadings. In Hatchell v. Jackson, 290 S.C. 256, 349 S.E.2d 407 (Ct.App.1986), Hatchell sued Jackson for fraud and deceit in connection with the sale of a restaurant. Jackson counterclaimed for breach......
-
Manning v. Quinn
...opposing the summary judgment motion. Tom Jenkins Realty, Inc. v. Hilton, 278 S.C. 624, 300 S.E.2d 594 (1983); Hatchell v. Jackson, 290 S.C. 256, 349 S.E.2d 407 (S.C.App.1986). The only evidence proffered by appellant that possibly creates a genuine issue as to a material fact was two affid......
-
Phillips v. Bayless
... ... admitted.” Rule 36(a), SCRCP; Hatchell v ... Jackson, 290 S.C. 256, 258, 349 S.E.2d 407, 408 (Ct ... App. 1986) ... ...
-
Bates v. Lewis
...there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hatchell v. Jackson, 290 S.C. 256, 349 S.E.2d 407 (Ct.App.1986). All ambiguities and inferences arising from the pleadings and admissions must be construed most strongly against the......
-
Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen
...Planners v. Friedman, Op. No. 28173 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Aug. 23, 2023) (Howard Adv. Sh. No. 33 at 14 n.5). [5] Hatchell v. Jackson, 290 S.C. 256, 259, 349 S.E.2d 407, 408 (Ct. App. 1986). [6] Rule 56(c), SCRCP [7] See Rule 56(a)-(b), SCRCP [8] Gibson v. Epting, 426 S.C. 346, 350, 827 S.E.2......