Royster Co. v. Eastern Distribution, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 23169,23169 |
| Citation | 389 S.E.2d 863,301 S.C. 18 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROYSTER COMPANY, Respondent, v. EASTERN DISTRIBUTION, INC., and Vaughan Products, Inc., of which Eastern Distribution, Inc., is Petitioner. . Heard |
Ronald F. Barbare, of Lathan & Barbare, P.A., Greenville, for petitioner.
David W. Keller, Jr., of McGowan, Keller, Eaton, Brodie & Steward, P.A., Florence, for respondent.
This case is before the Court on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. We granted certiorari to review the case of Royster Company v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., 298 S.C. 51, 378 S.E.2d 71 (Ct.App.1989), in which the Court of Appeals held that a motion for change of venue does not have to be addressed prior to the disposition of a motion for summary judgment. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
Respondent Royster Company sued petitioner Eastern Distribution, Inc. and Vaughan Products, Inc. for breach of contract. Petitioner filed a motion for change of venue from Florence County to Greenville County. Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment without deciding the motion for a change of venue despite the fact that it remained uncontroverted that petitioner was a resident of Greenville County. The Court of Appeals held that S.C.Code Ann. § 15-7-30 (1976), the venue statute providing for a trial in the defendant's county of residence, does not apply where a plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment because the granting of summary judgment is not a "trial". On review, we must address a novel question in South Carolina: that of whether the granting of summary judgment constitutes a trial for purposes of venue.
Petitioner contends the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the circuit court properly granted the motion for summary judgment without changing venue. Petitioner argues that a hearing on a motion for summary judgment constitutes a trial within the meaning of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-7-30 (1976) such that it must be held in the county of the defendant's residence. We agree.
S.C.Code Ann. § 15-7-30 (1976) provides that, except in those cases under S.C.Code Ann. § 15-7-10 (1976) which are tried where the subject matter is located and those cases under S.C.Code Ann. § 15-7-20 (1976) which are tried where the cause of action arose, all other cases shall be tried in the county in which the defendant resides at the time the action is commenced. The right of a defendant in a civil action to a trial in the county of his residence is a substantial one. Chestnut v. Reid, 299 S.C. 305, 384 S.E.2d 713 (1989). When a motion to change venue is brought pursuant to Section 15-7-30 and the facts concerning the defendant's residence are uncontradicted as here, the circuit court must change the venue to the county where the defendant resides. Chestnut v. Reid, supra.
The Court of Appeals held that Section 15-7-30 was inapplicable to the granting of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, SCRCP because it is not a "trial." We disagree. We interpret the term "trial" at least in the context of Rule 56, more expansively than does the circuit court and the Court of Appeals and hold that the granting of summary judgment does constitute a trial for the purposes of venue.
An old South Carolina case defines a trial as "the examination of the matter of fact in issue ..." State v. Starling, 49 S.C.L. (15 Rich.) 120, 131 (1867) (emphasis added). A more recent and expansive definition of a trial is a "judicial examination, in accordance with the law of the land, of a cause, either civil or criminal, of the issues between the parties, whether of law or fact, before a court that has proper jurisdiction." Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.1979) (emphasis added). Rule 56(c), SCRCP states that summary judgment is proper when it appears that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Because a court must examine both the facts and the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Williams
...shall be ‘construed to secure the just, speedy[,] and inexpensive determination of every action.’ " Royster Co. v. E. Distrib., Inc. , 301 S.C. 18, 21, 389 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1990). The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure apply in family court when no family court rule provides otherwise.......
-
Williams v. Williams
...shall be 'construed to secure the just, speedy[, ] and inexpensive determination of every action.'" Royster Co. v. E. Distrib., Inc., 301 S.C. 18, 21, 389 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1990). The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure apply in family court when no family court rule provides otherwise. ......
-
Jeter v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., 26168.
...to mean §§ 15-7-10 and -20. See Carroll v. Guess, 302 S.C. 175, 177, 394 S.E.2d 707, 708 (1990); Royster Co. v. E. Distrib., Inc., 301 S.C. 18, 20, 389 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1990). The 2005 amendments to 15-7-30 are not applicable to this case. See 15-7-30 (Supp.2005) (applicable to causes of ac......
-
Truck South, Inc. v. Patel, 2862.
...to Patel's county of residence, the court was without authority to consider the summary judgment motion. Royster v. Eastern Distrib., Inc., 301 S.C. 18, 389 S.E.2d 863 (1990) (where circuit court erred in failing to transfer venue to county of defendant's residence, its granting of summary ......