Purex Corp. v. Walker, 21803
| Decision Date | 01 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21803,21803 |
| Citation | 278 S.C. 388,296 S.E.2d 868 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | PUREX CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Robert N. WALKER, Respondent. |
Bradford N. Martin, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellant.
Daniel J. Farnsworth, Greenville, for respondent.
The Complaint in this action arises out of a collision between two automobiles in Greenville on July 20, 1978. The vehicle of the Plaintiff, Purex Corporation, was being driven by its employee, Paul G. Walker, whom we will refer to as Agent Walker. The Defendant, Robert N. Walker, was driving his own motor vehicle and we will refer to him as Defendant Walker. He interposed a counterclaim. Two questions are submitted to this Court by way of appeal. First, did the trial judge err in refusing Plaintiff's motion to continue the case, and second, did the trial judge err in refusing to grant a new trial after a verdict was rendered in favor of Defendant Walker.
The facts out of which these questions arise are as follows: On Friday, May 23, 1980, counsel for both parties were informed by the office of the Circuit Judge in Greenville that the trial of the case would be the second to be heard the following Monday, May 26, 1980. Plaintiff's only witness, Agent Walker, lived in Columbia and planned to be in Greenville for the trial. Sunday night, counsel for the Plaintiff received a telephone call from Agent Walker. He stated that he was suffering from dizziness, vertigo, high blood pressure, and loss of equilibrium over the weekend. He stated that he had called his family physician, Dr. Charles R. Holmes, in Columbia, and had an appointment with him for ten o'clock the next morning. Dr. Holmes was away for the weekend and Dr. Madden was accepting his calls, and it was with Dr. Madden that Agent Walker spoke. Dr. Madden prescribed drugs and advised Agent Walker to stay in bed over the weekend and to contact Dr. Holmes on Monday.
On Monday morning it developed that the first case was not for trial and, accordingly, this case was first on the trial roster. Counsel for Plaintiff advised the judge of his conversation on the telephone the night before and made a motion for continuance, agreeing "... to submit any written affidavits to the Court once I can get them typed up by my secretary." This was obviously an offer to comply with Rule 27 of the Circuit Court. Instead, the judge phoned Dr. Holmes and was told that he (Holmes) knew of no reason why Agent Walker should not be able to appear in court. In actuality, Agent Walker was in the waiting room of Dr. Holmes' office at the moment, but Dr. Holmes was not aware of his presence.
The judge refused the motion for continuance and directed a nonsuit with prejudice as to the Complaint. He then permitted the Defendant to pursue his Counterclaim to a favorable verdict.
Thereafter, counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v. Grant
...(1985). "Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts before him at the time." Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390, 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982). Our review of the facts convinces us that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the Grants' ......
-
Chambers v. Anderson County Dept. of Social Services
...of this statement. Neither was any representation made as to when Bobby Chambers might be able to proceed. Cf. Purex Corporation v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 296 S.E.2d 868 (1982); Edens v. Cole, 261 S.C. 556, 201 S.E.2d 382 (1973); Lerner v. Bluestein, 175 S.C. 59, 178 S.E. 265 The granting or......
-
Duke v. Westvaco Development Corp., 0005
...sound discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling is not disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Purex Corporation v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 296 S.E.2d 868 (1982). The testimony of two additional witnesses for Duke was excluded because Duke sought to add them to his list of w......
-
Brandt v. Harriett-Brandt
...for a continuance on the ground that counsel has not had time to prepare is rarely disturbed on appeal."); Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390, 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982) ("Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion [in ruling on a motion for a continuance] depends upon the ......