State ex rel. Medlock v. Love Shop, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0545,0545 |
| Citation | 286 S.C. 486,334 S.E.2d 528 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of South Carolina, ex rel. T. Travis MEDLOCK, Attorney General, Appellant, v. LOVE SHOP, LTD., John A. Williamson, Robert V. Bondy, and William E. Flatt, Defendants, of whom John A. Williamson and Robert V. Bondy are Respondents. Appeal of John A. WILLIAMSON and Robert V. Bondy. . Heard |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. C. Richard Kelly, Columbia, for appellant.
John A. Williamson and Robert V. Bondy, pro se.
This action was brought by the State against the defendant Love Shop, Ltd. and three of its officers for violating the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C.Code Ann. Sections 39-5-10 to -560 (1976). The circuit court, the Honorable E.C. Burnette presiding, entered an order of default against Love Shop, Ltd. and respondents John Williamson and Robert Bundy upon their failure to answer. The court also scheduled a hearing to determine appropriate relief before Special Circuit Court Judge James C. Harrison, Jr.
Judge Harrison ordered dismissal of the actions against the respondents Williamson and Bondy after the State's presentation of its evidence of damages. He found that the State had failed to effect service on Williamson and had failed to prove that Bondy was a "controlling person" of Love Shop, Ltd. within the meaning of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. It is from these two rulings that the State appeals, contending Judge Harrison erred in reversing findings entered earlier by Judge Burnette in his order of default. We agree, reverse and remand.
It is settled that one circuit judge does not have the power to review, modify, affirm or reverse the findings of another circuit judge. Cook v. Taylor, 272 S.C. 536, 252 S.E.2d 923 (1979); Sheppard v. Kimbrough, 282 S.C. 348, 318 S.E.2d 573 (Ct.App.1984). The question is whether Judge Burnette entered findings on the issues ruled upon by Judge Harrison. We hold that he did.
Before a default judgment may be entered, the plaintiff must prove and the court find that jurisdiction of the defaulting party was acquired by lawful service of process. S.C.Code Ann. Section 15-35-310 (1976); 49 C.J.S. Judgments Section 211 (1947). In entering an order of default, therefore, the court necessarily found that it had jurisdiction of Williamson. In addition, it explicitly found that "the Defendants Love Shop, Ltd., John A. Williamson, and Robert V. Bondy have been duly served with a Rule to Show Cause, Summons and Complaint." Judge Harrison's subsequent ruling that Williamson was not served thus reversed Judge Burnette's finding and was error.
Likewise, entry of an order of default is an admission by the defaulting party of the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint:
The defendant, by waiving a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.E. Carmichael d/b/a Lake View Gas Co. & Carmichael Farm Supply Co. v. Benita Joyce Page Oden Douglas Lee Page and David Carroll Page Defendants/Of whom Benita Joyce Page Oden is the .
... ... of discretion. State v. Tanner, 299 ... S.C. 459, 462, 385 ... See State ex ... rel. Medlock v. Love Shop, Ltd., 286 S.C. 486, 488, ... ...
-
Carmichael v. Oden
... ... State v. Tanner, 299 S.C. 459, 462, 385 S.E.2d 832, ... See State ex rel. Medlock v. Love Shop, ... Ltd., 286 S.C ... ...
-
AEP2, LLC v. BMW of N. Am. LLC
...("[E]ntry of an order of default is an admission by the defaulting party of the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint[.]"); id. at 489, 334 S.E.2d at 530 ("The defendant, by waiving a contest and suffering default to be taken against him, admits the truth of the allegations, set out in ......
-
State ex rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Soc. Today, Inc.
...Perry v. Jones, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bailey) 10 (1828); Cook v. Taylor, 272 S.C. 536, 252 S.E.2d 923 (1979); State ex rel. Medlock v. Love Shop, Ltd., 286 S.C. 486, 334 S.E.2d 528 (Ct.App.1985). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an adjudication on the merits in favor of the party o......