Simmons v. Johnson, No. 21926

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Docket NumberNo. 21926
PartiesRick Alexander SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Ella Jane JOHNSON, Respondent.
Decision Date12 May 1983

Page 101

303 S.E.2d 101
279 S.C. 146
Rick Alexander SIMMONS, Appellant,
v.
Ella Jane JOHNSON, Respondent.
No. 21926.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 12, 1983.

Glenn B. Manning, Bennettsville, for appellant.

John C. Lindsay, Jr., Bennettsville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Rick Alexander Simmons appeals a family court order finding him to be the father of the minor son and unborn child or children of Ella Jane Johnson. A hearing on the financial status of the parties was also ordered.

Page 102

Each of appellant's exceptions is in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6, which requires an exception to contain a complete assignment of error. This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal. Howell v. Department of Social Services, 293 S.E.2d 851 (S.C.1982).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Lance v. State, No. 21925
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 12 Mayo 1983
    ...Procedure Act. We have carefully considered the remaining exception argued by appellant and are of the view that no question of [279 S.C. 146] precedential value or error of law appears. It is disposed of under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Affirmed. ...
  • Charleston Housewrecking Co., Inc. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., No. 22156
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Agosto 1984
    ...it does not contain a complete assignment of error. "This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of this appeal." Simmons v. Johnson, 279 S.C. 146, 303 S.E.2d 101, 102 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6. ...
2 cases
  • Lance v. State, No. 21925
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 12 Mayo 1983
    ...Procedure Act. We have carefully considered the remaining exception argued by appellant and are of the view that no question of [279 S.C. 146] precedential value or error of law appears. It is disposed of under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Affirmed. ...
  • Charleston Housewrecking Co., Inc. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., No. 22156
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Agosto 1984
    ...not contain a complete assignment of error. "This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of this appeal." Simmons v. Johnson, 279 S.C. 146, 303 S.E.2d 101, 102 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6. ...

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