McLain v. Ingram, 24074
| Decision Date | 23 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24074,24074 |
| Citation | 444 S.E.2d 512,314 S.C. 359 |
| Parties | Cassie B. McLAIN, Appellant, v. Thomas E. INGRAM, Jr., and Caroline Y. Ingram, d/b/a Wannamaker's Drug Store, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Delton W. Powers, Jr., Bennettsville, for appellant.
Michael M. Nunn, of Coleman, Aiken & Chase, P.A., Florence, for respondents.
The issue in this case is whether the service of a summons and complaint prior to their filing commences an action for purposes of the statute of limitations. The circuit court held such service insufficient, and granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Appellant allegedly suffered a personal injury at respondents' store on March 3, 1986. At that time, the applicable statute of limitations was six years.
On February 25, 1992, appellant mailed a summons and complaint to the clerk of court and simultaneously sent respondents' copies by certified mail. Respondents received their copies on February 26, and on February 27, the clerk filed the summons and complaint. Therefore, the summons and complaint were filed on the 27th, Rule 5(e), SCRCP, the day after respondents were served. Rule 4(d)(8), SCRCP. On March 25, 1992, appellant served copies of the now-filed summons and complaint on respondents. Respondents then moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, and the trial court granted the motion.
The adoption of the SCRCP in 1985 heralded a new era in South Carolina's civil practice, modernizing and streamlining our system. Among the changes made by these rules was a new procedure for commencing a civil action. Rule 3(a), SCRCP, provides "A civil action is commenced by the filing and service of a summons and complaint." Prior to the adoption of the SCRCP, a civil action was commenced by service of the summons. See S.C.Code Ann. § 15-3-10 (1976) repealed 1985 Act No. 100. A further change was made by Rule 5(d), SCRCP, which reads: "The summons and complaint shall be filed before service." (emphasis added). This change in practice made by the SCRCP is highlighted by the Reporter's Note to Rule 3: "This Rule 3(a) ... preserves the new requirement for prior filing (of the summons and complaint) with the clerk of court". See also Rule 4(b), SCRCP ().
The language of Rule 5(d) is clear: the summons and complaint must be filed prior to their service. Here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McComas v. Ross
...the defendant or defendants served." The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1985. See McLain v. Ingram, 314 S.C. 359, 360, 444 S.E.2d 512, 512 (1994) ("The adoption of the SCRCP in 1985 heralded a new era in South Carolina's civil practice, modernizing and streamlin......
-
CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE v. Lewis-Davis
...action is commenced before expiration of the limitations period, the plaintiff's claim is normally barred. See, e.g., McLain v. Ingram, 314 S.C. 359, 444 S.E.2d 512 (1994). Blyth v. Marcus, 322 S.C. 150, 152-53, 470 S.E.2d 389, 390-91 There is universal acceptance of the logic of Statutes o......
-
Blyth v. Marcus
...correct this 'failed' commencement before expiration of the limitations period, the claim will normally be time barred. McLain, 314 S.C. at 360, 444 S.E.2d at 512-13. Rule 3(b) may operate to save an action which is not timely commenced. Under Rule an attempt to commence an action is equiva......
-
Becker v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't & Workforce
... ... constrained by the rules and legal precedent in this State ... See McClain v. Ingram, 314 S.C. 359, 444 S.E.2d 512 ... ...