Solomon v. City Realty Co., 19776
| Decision Date | 20 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19776,19776 |
| Citation | 203 S.E.2d 435,262 S.C. 198 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sammy SOLOMON and Jack Dunn, Respondents, v. CITY REALTY COMPANY et al., Appellants. |
E. Windell McCrackin, Myrtle Beach, for appellant.
John W. Jenrette, Jr., North Myrtle Beach, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court refusing a special appearance motion by the Defendant Milton Bauchner to dismiss the action as to him for lack of jurisdiction of his person, he not being a resident of South Carolina but of New Jersey, and the only service of process upon him having been personal service in the State of Florida. City Realty Company, a New Jersey corporation, and Ocean Forest Hotel, Inc., a South Carolina corporation, were named as defendants but were not served with process. Bauchner was president of both corporations. The cause of action arose out of a 1966 contract whereby plaintiffs allegedly leased from the defendants a portion of the Ocean Forest Hotel property, known as the Patio, in Horry County, South Carolina, and the alleged breach of the contract by the defendants in 1966 and 1967.
The court held that service on Bauchner in Florida was authorized by our so-called long-arm statute, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 as part of the Uniform Commercial Code, Act No. 1065 of 1966, effective January 1, 1968, and reenacted by Act No. 1343 of 1972, approved June 2, 1972. Bauchner has appealed on four exceptions which we consider in order.
1. The statute has no application to the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The long-arm statute has been codified as Sections 10.2--801 through 10.2-- 809, South Carolina Code Added Volume 2A (1966). Section 10.2--803 authorizes a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a person as to a cause of action arising from the person's conduct in specified particulars (a) through (h). We quote the first, '(a) transacting any business in this State'; in such cases Sections 10.2--804 and 10.2--806 authorize personal service without the State. Manifestly, the alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint arose from Bauchner's transacting business in this State; hence, the case is within the terms of the statute.
2. The breach of contract occurred prior to the effective date of the statute; hence, the statute is not applicable. The only passage in the brief which can be related to this exception is a statement that the alleged breach of contract occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, followed by: This bald conclusion is not manifestly correct, Annot., 19 A.L.R. (3d) 138, Sec. 4, p. 146 (1968), and leaves unargued the error assigned by this exception. Under the familiar rule, it is deemed abandoned.
3. The long-arm statute as enacted in 1966 only applied to cases arising under the Uniform Commercial Code. The statute was adopted as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R & G CONST., INC. v. LRTA
...to payment under the contract. An issue is deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is only conclusory. See Solomon v. City Realty Co., 262 S.C. 198, 203 S.E.2d 435 (1974). Nonetheless, R & G had the right to subcontract the work. The arrangement between R & G and Native Soils is fully......
-
Joubert v. SOUTH CAROLINA DSS
...violation and additional claims for damages not barred by the statute of limitations are not preserved. See Solomon v. City Realty Co., 262 S.C. 198, 203 S.E.2d 435 (1974) (conclusory arguments are deemed abandoned); Fields v. Melrose Ltd. Partnership, 312 S.C. 102, 439 S.E.2d 283 (Ct. App.......
-
State v. Tyndall
...their applicability to his situation. Conclusory arguments constitute an abandonment of the issue on appeal. See Solomon v. City Realty Co., 262 S.C. 198, 203 S.E.2d 435 (1974) (where only passage in brief relating to issue appealed was single conclusory statement which left "unargued the e......
-
State v. Jones
...unconstitutionality of the statute." We find Jones' argument is so conclusory that it has been abandoned. See Solomon v. City Realty Co., 262 S.C. 198, 203 S.E.2d 435 (1974) (where only passage in brief relating to issue appealed was single conclusory statement which left unargued the error......