Lewis v. Atkinson Implement Co., Inc., 0019
| Decision Date | 12 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 0019,0019 |
| Citation | 311 S.E.2d 80,280 S.C. 87 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Odell B. LEWIS, Respondent, v. ATKINSON IMPLEMENT CO., INC., and J.G. Slocumb Defendants, of whom J.G. Slocumb is Appellant. |
J. Dwight Hudson and Richard M. Lovelace, Jr., Conway, for appellant.
James P. Stevens, Jr., of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn, Loris, for respondent.
Respondent Odell B. Lewis brought this action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a tractor accident. Atkinson Implement Co., Inc., and the appellant J.G. Slocumb filed motions for summary judgment alleging that Lewis' injuries were caused by his own negligence. Both motions were denied. Subsequently, Lewis entered into a covenant with Atkinson Implement not to sue. Slocumb immediately filed a motion for a change of venue which was denied. He now appeals the order denying that motion alleging that the trial court erred (1) in denying him a change of venue because his right to be tried in the county of his residence is a substantial right and because he is the sole remaining defendant in the action and (2) in failing to rule that Atkinson Implement 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 order granting or refusing a change of venue is interlocutory and not immediately appealable. We follow Godley, supra, and dismiss this appeal without prejudice. The order denying appellant a change of venue is interlocutory and not appealable irrespective of whether Atkinson Implement was a sham defendant or not. See also S.C.Code § 14-3-330 (1976).
DISMISSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc.
...S.C. 571, 300 S.E.2d 78 (1983), Sanders v. Amoco Oil Co., 283 S.C. 195, 320 S.E.2d 334 (Ct.App.1984), and Lewis v. Atkinson Implement Co. Inc., 280 S.C. 87, 311 S.E.2d 80 (Ct.App.1983) which clearly hold such orders are not immediately appealable. Therefore, Defendant's argument that these ......
-
Sanders v. Amoco Oil Co., Inc., 0275
...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 order is interlocutory and not immediately appealable. This appeal is theref......