Murphy v. Hagan, No. 21307

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHARWELL; LEWIS, C. J., and GREGORY; GREGORY; LEWIS
Citation271 S.E.2d 311,275 S.C. 334
PartiesG. Phillip MURPHY, Appellant, v. Edward H. HAGAN, Jr., Respondent.
Decision Date30 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 21307

Page 311

271 S.E.2d 311
275 S.C. 334
G. Phillip MURPHY, Appellant,
v.
Edward H. HAGAN, Jr., Respondent.
No. 21307.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Sept. 30, 1980.

Page 312

[275 S.C. 335] Reese I. Joye, Jr., and George J. Kefalos of Joye, Claypoole & Kefalos, North Charleston, for appellant.

Harvey M. Spar of Shimel, Ackerman, Theos & Spar, Charleston, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

G. Phillip Murphy appeals from the decision of the lower court which granted respondent Edward H. Hagan, Jr., summary judgment on his usury counterclaim. We affirm.

Respondent contends at the outset that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. He argues that appellant did [275 S.C. 336] not timely serve and file a written notice of intent to appeal within ten days of the rising of the lower court pursuant to Section 18-9-60, S.C.Code Ann. (1976) and Rule I, Section I A of the Rules of this Court. The code section and court rule referred to provide in relevant part that notice of intent to appeal be served within ten days of written notice of a decision rendered at chambers or, in other appeals, within ten days of the rising of the lower court.

In this case the motion for summary judgment was heard during a special term of court. Counsel for both parties were heard. The trial judge apparently dictated his order into the record at the conclusion of the hearing in his chambers while all parties were still present.

Appellant argues that because the order was entered physically in the judge's chambers that the matter must be deemed decided "at chambers" for purposes of appeal. We disagree. A matter regularly scheduled for hearing during a regular or special term of court of which all parties have notice and the opportunity to be heard is not deemed a matter decided "at chambers" for purposes of appeal simply because the order is dictated in the judge's chambers at the convenience of the parties or the court.

The record before us betrays much confusion by the parties as to when appeal should have been taken to this Court. The action of the lower court judge in dictating his decision into the record at chambers did not lend clarity to the situation. It appears that counsel for appellant sent a letter to counsel for respondent within ten days of the rising of the lower court which contains substantially all the notice requirements of the Rule. In addition, counsel for appellant fully conformed to the requirements of notice, service and filing under the Rule when counsel for respondent later served on him written notice of the order.

[275 S.C. 337] Given the peculiar facts involved, we have reviewed the merits of this appeal but nonetheless conclude that the lower court must be affirmed.

Murphy and Hagan owned all the stock in Quality Home Builders, Inc. They entered an agreement whereby Murphy would sell all his stock to Hagan for $50,000. The agreement incorporated a note representing the purchase price payable "at such time as Hagan shall be able and desire to do so...." The agreement further provided that Hagan would pay Murphy $500 per month "which is considered as interest on account of said note and not to be applied to the principal amount of same...." By the terms of the agreement, the $500 per month was to be paid for each month that any of the principal remained outstanding.

Murphy sued on the note and agreement alleging nonpayment and default in the monthly payments after thirteen such payments had initially been made. Hagan answered and counterclaimed. In his counterclaim, Hagan alleged the $500 per month charge constitutes a usurious rate of 12% under Section 34-31-30 and that he is,

Page 313

therefore, entitled to relief under Section 34-31-50. Section 34-31-50 provides that a party contracting to receive excessive interest forfeits all interest and is liable for twice the interest paid in.

In reply, Murphy in essence asserted only that the $500 per month was not meant as interest but as liquidated damages and that an amount of only approximately $367 was actually paid...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 practice notes
  • Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, M-156-90
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 6, 1996
    ...trial judge never ruled and which was not raised in posttrial motion Page 880 was not properly before Supreme Court); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980) (appellate court will not hear issues not raised or preserved in lower court proceeding); Dixon v. Besco Eng'g, Inc., 32......
  • Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Bruce, No. 0249
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 4, 1984
    ...action based thereon was of such a character as to change prejudicially the position of the party claiming the estoppel. Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980); S.C. State Hwy. Dept. v. Metts, 270 S.C. 73, 240 S.E.2d 816 Here, Sanders had no knowledge or means of knowledge tha......
  • Crocker v. Barr, No. 1137
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 22, 1988
    ...No exception fairly raises this issue and the contention was not made below. We therefore need not consider it. See Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980) (an issue not raised below or not properly preserved by an exception may not be heard on In any case, the statute nowhere ......
  • Liberty Loan Corp. of Darlington, S.C. v. Mumford, AIKEN-SPEI
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 23, 1984
    ...first time on appeal. Whittington v. Ranger Insurance Co., 261 S.C. 582, 201 S.E.2d 620 (1973); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 Page 22 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980); Crocker v. Crocker, 314 S.E.2d 343 (S.C.App.1984); Todd's Ice Cream v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, 315 S.E.2d 373 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, M-156-90
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 6, 1996
    ...trial judge never ruled and which was not raised in posttrial motion Page 880 was not properly before Supreme Court); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980) (appellate court will not hear issues not raised or preserved in lower court proceeding); Dixon v. Besco Eng'g, Inc., 32......
  • Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Bruce, No. 0249
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 4, 1984
    ...action based thereon was of such a character as to change prejudicially the position of the party claiming the estoppel. Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980); S.C. State Hwy. Dept. v. Metts, 270 S.C. 73, 240 S.E.2d 816 Here, Sanders had no knowledge or means of knowledge tha......
  • Crocker v. Barr, No. 1137
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 22, 1988
    ...No exception fairly raises this issue and the contention was not made below. We therefore need not consider it. See Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980) (an issue not raised below or not properly preserved by an exception may not be heard on In any case, the statute nowhere ......
  • Liberty Loan Corp. of Darlington, S.C. v. Mumford, AIKEN-SPEI
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 23, 1984
    ...first time on appeal. Whittington v. Ranger Insurance Co., 261 S.C. 582, 201 S.E.2d 620 (1973); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 Page 22 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980); Crocker v. Crocker, 314 S.E.2d 343 (S.C.App.1984); Todd's Ice Cream v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, 315 S.E.2d 373 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT