Pendergrass v. Martin, 21324

Decision Date12 November 1980
Docket NumberNo. 21324,21324
Citation275 S.C. 413,272 S.E.2d 172
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWillie PENDERGRASS, Respondent, v. Louise MARTIN, Appellant.

Daniel Fulton, Columbia, for appellant.

Gordon B. Jenkinson, Kingstree, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

Under Rule 89 of the Circuit Court Rules, answers to a request for admissions must be served within ten (10) days after the service of the request. Defendant served request for admissions on plaintiff and plaintiff failed to answer them within the ten day period. After the time for answering the request had expired, the trial judge granted plaintiff an extension of time to respond. The defendant has appealed from that ruling.

The order granting an extension of time in which to answer a request for admissions is intermediate or interlocutory in nature and does not involve the merits or a substantial right under Section 14-3-330 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976), but is reviewable after final judgment under Section 18-1-130 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976).

See: Wallace v. Interamerican Trust Company, 246 S.C. 563, 144 S.E.2d 813; Kemmerlin v. Bloom, 251 S.C. 49, 159 S.E.2d 910.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

LITTLEJOHN, NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ateyeh v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1987
    ...allowing a party to answer a request for admissions after time to answer has expired is not immediately appealable. Pendergrass v. Martin, 275 S.C. 413, 272 S.E.2d 172 (1980). Such an order is obviously comparable to the order in the instant case which has the effect of allowing a party to ......
  • Jacobs v. Harman, 22121
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 30, 1984
    ...order overruling the objections to the Requests for Admissions is also not appealable before final judgment. See Pendergrass v. Martin, 275 S.C. 413, 272 S.E.2d 172 (1980). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal without prejudice to raise the issues at DISMISSED. ...
  • Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1991
    ...or affects a substantial right. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976). Such orders are reviewable after final judgment. Pendergrass v. Martin, 275 S.C. 413, 272 S.E.2d 172 (1980). Avoidance of trial is not a "substantial right" entitling a party to immediate appeal of an interlocutory order. Blac......

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