Main v. Corley, 22114
| Decision Date | 17 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22114,22114 |
| Citation | 281 S.C. 525,316 S.E.2d 406 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Peggy S. MAIN, Respondent, v. Mazie R. CORLEY, Appellant. . Heard |
J. Wesley Crum, III, Denmark, for appellant.
J. Terry Poole, Barnwell, for respondent.
Plaintiff-Respondent, Peggy S. Main, (buyer) brought this action for specific performance of a contract to buy land from Defendant-Appellant, Mazie R. Corley, (seller). The trial judge granted the buyer's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. We affirm.
The initial parties to the contract were Mazie R. Corley who proposed to sell the real estate to buyers, Frank D. Wooldridge and Betty L. Wooldridge. The contract is regular in all respects being properly witnessed and probated in keeping with the law relative to real estate in South Carolina. The rights of purchasers, Frank D. Wooldridge and Betty L. Wooldridge, were assigned to the buyer who brings this action. The showing made by the buyer as a basis of summary judgment consisted of the contract, an affidavit of the attorney who prepared the original contract of sale, and an affidavit of a witness to the instrument. There was also evidence that the seller had previously undertaken to institute an action in court based on the contract and that installment payments had been made consistent with the contract. There was no satisfactory explanation as to what the payments were for unless to be applied to the contract. The only evidence the seller introduced was the testimony of her husband who stated that the signature on the contract was not hers.
In considering whether summary judgment was appropriate, the trial court and this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Shropshire v. Jones, 277 S.C. 468, 289 S.E.2d 410 (1982). Summary judgment is appropriate in those cases in which plain, palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ. Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Company, 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 (1976).
A motion for summary judgment is akin to a motion for a directed verdict. In each instance, one party must lose as a matter of law. A motion for a directed verdict speaks in terms of "only one reasonable inference." A motion for a summary judgment speaks in terms of "no genuine issue as to material facts." It is not sufficient that one create an inference which is not reasonable. Similarly, it is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Long Mfg. NC, Inc., 2878.
...testimony regarding the adequacy of the auger's warning in this case creates a genuine issue of material fact. Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 527, 316 S.E.2d 406, 406 (1984). In his deposition testimony, Allen's expert If [Allen] read [the warning], he may have looked at this auger and belie......
-
George v. Fabri
...is akin to a motion for a directed verdict" because "[i]n each instance, one party must lose as a matter of law." Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 526, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984) (emphasis added); see also Baughman, 306 S.C. at 115, 410 S.E.2d at 545 (standard for summary judgment "mirrors" st......
-
Baughman v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 213 (1986); see also Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 316 S.E.2d 406 (1984). Under Rule 56(c), the party seeking summary judgment has the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine i......
-
Lemmons v. Maced. Water Works, Inc.
...patently the evidence is introduced solely in a vain attempt to create an issue of fact that is not genuine." Main v. Corley , 281 S.C. 525, 527, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984). "Once the moving party carries its initial burden, the opposing party must come forward with specific facts that show......
-
Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen
...426 S.C. at 352, 827 S.E.2d at 181. [29] Grimsley v. S.C. Law Enf’t Div., 415 S.C. 33, 42, 780 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2015); Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 527, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984). [30] Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 220, 578 S.E.2d 329, 335 (2003). [31] E.g., Bethea, 177 S.......