Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of S. C., Inc., No. 19107
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BUSSEY; MOSS |
| Citation | 255 S.C. 42,177 S.E.2d 4 |
| Parties | William Edward PERRY, Jr., by Lila Perry, His Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, v. MINIT SAVER FOOD STORES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19107 |
Page 4
Litem, Respondent,
v.
MINIT SAVER FOOD STORES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Appellant.
[255 S.C. 43] R. Davis Howser and Donald V. Richardson, III, Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Richardson, Columbia, for appellant.
Lee & Ball, Columbia, for respondent.
[255 S.C. 44] BUSSEY, Justice:
In the instant action the defendant, pursuant to Rule Number 87 of the Circuit Court Rules, served the plaintiff and his two brothers with notices of the taking of their respective depositions. All responded to the notices and following the taking of said depositions the defendant voluntarily paid to each of the brothers witness fees and mileage, pursuant to Section I of Rule 87, which reads as follows:
'A witness attending any deposition held pursuant to these rules shall receive $15.00 for each day's attendance and for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the same, and nine cents per mile for going from and returning to his place of residence.'
Counsel for plaintiff demanded the payment of like fees for the plaintiff, which demand was refused, but, in response to a motion, the lower court ordered the same said, and the defendant appealed.
The appellant contends that the word 'witness', as used in Section I of Rule 87, was intended to refer only to a witness, who was not a party, and that a party whose deposition is taken pursuant to the rule is not entitled to the payment of the fees provided for in the rule. No authority, in point, is cited for this contention and we do not agree therewith. Rule 87 provides for the taking of the testimony by deposition 'of any person, including a [255 S.C. 45] party, * * *.' When a party's deposition is taken, he is, of course, for the purpose thereof, a witness as well as a party. The word 'witness' is defined, inter alia, as 'a person whose declaration under oath (or affirmation) is received as evidence for any purpose * * *.' Black's Law Dictionary.
It is the settled law in this State that where the terms of a statute are clear and free of ambiguity there is no room for construction and the courts are required to apply such according to their literal meaning. See cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Statutes, k190. We
Page 5
know of no sound reason why this principle should not apply to a court rule as well as to a statute. We are of the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Ellisor, No. 20191
...the court to apply it literally because the legislative design is unmistakable. Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of South Carolina, Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970); Southeastern Fire Ins. Co. v. S.C. Tax Commission, 253 S.C. 407, 171 S.E.2d 355 (1969); Gunnels v. American Liberty Ins......
-
Murphy v. NATIONSBANK, NA, No. 25913.
...Is a party to an action entitled to a witness fee and mileage for attending a deposition? DISCUSSION In Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores, 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970), this Court answered the precise question before us. There, we held the word "witness," as used in Circuit Court Practic......
-
Green By and Through Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc., No. 24058
...used in interpreting statutes. Garner v. Houck, --- S.C. ----, 435 S.E.2d 847 (1993); Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of S.C., Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970). Therefore, the words of Rule 35 must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construct......
-
Murphy v. NATIONSBANK, NA, No. 3633.
...status to witnesses and parties. Murphy, however, relied upon the case of Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of South Carolina, Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970), for the proposition that a party who testifies at a deposition is a witness and is entitled to the witness fee and mileage. T......
-
Murphy v. NATIONSBANK, NA, No. 25913.
...Is a party to an action entitled to a witness fee and mileage for attending a deposition? DISCUSSION In Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores, 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970), this Court answered the precise question before us. There, we held the word "witness," as used in Circuit Court Practic......
-
Martin v. Ellisor, No. 20191
...the court to apply it literally because the legislative design is unmistakable. Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of South Carolina, Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970); Southeastern Fire Ins. Co. v. S.C. Tax Commission, 253 S.C. 407, 171 S.E.2d 355 (1969); Gunnels v. American Liberty Ins......
-
Green By and Through Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc., No. 24058
...used in interpreting statutes. Garner v. Houck, --- S.C. ----, 435 S.E.2d 847 (1993); Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of S.C., Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970). Therefore, the words of Rule 35 must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construct......
-
Murphy v. NATIONSBANK, NA, No. 3633.
...status to witnesses and parties. Murphy, however, relied upon the case of Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of South Carolina, Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970), for the proposition that a party who testifies at a deposition is a witness and is entitled to the witness fee and mileage. T......