Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville
Decision Date | 22 January 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 20155,20155 |
Citation | 266 S.C. 81,221 S.E.2d 773 |
Parties | TOWNES ASSOCIATES, LTD., Respondent, v. The CITY OF GREENVILLE, South Carolina, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert O. Conoley, Greenville, for appellant.
Charles W. Marchbanks, Greenville, for respondent.
Townes Associates, Ltd. (plaintiff) brought two separate actions against the City of Greenville (City), alleging that fees were owed it for architectural services on two separate construction projects. From rulings of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff in each action, the City has appealed.
Plaintiff alleged in the first action that fees were owed it for architectural work on a pedestrian mall on Coffee Street, pursuant to a written contract with the City which provided for an architect fee totaling 5.45% Of the lowest construction bid. In its answer, the City admitted the written contract, but denied that the same had been breached by the City.
In the second action, plaintiff alleged that it had performed services for the City under an implied contract in connection with a parking garage on Spring Street and was entitled to recover the value of its services. The City denied that there was an implied contract for the plaintiff to provide services in connection with this Spring Street garage project.
The actions were consolidated for trial and referred to the master. Both are actions at law.
The master made findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that the City had wrongfully breached its written contract with plaintiff on the Coffee Street Mall project, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the fee provided in the contract, as if no termination had taken place. With regard to the Spring Street project, the master found that the City, through its City Manager, had employed plaintiff to perform services, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of its services under a Quantum meruit theory.
The circuit judge concurred in the findings of the master, except to modify the master's conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to recover the total fee provided in the written contract, as if no termination had taken place. On this point, the circuit judge concluded that plaintiff was only entitled to 80% Of the fee provided in the written contract. Plaintiff does not challenge this modification of the master's findings and has not appealed.
The City has appealed the lower court's order, alleging as error that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the court's findings. Also in issue is whether the doctrine of estoppel may be applied against a public body (City) acting through one of its officers (City Manager).
An apparent misunderstanding, on the part of the appellate bar, of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court prompts us to set out the scope of review available upon appeal in civil cases. Article V, § 5 of our Constitution, ratified April 1973, sets forth the jurisdiction of this Court. It is the same as Article V, § 4 of the Constitution of 1895. Also see §§ 15--122 and 15--123 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1962).
1. In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried by a jury, the purisdiction of this Court extends merely to the correction of errors of law, and a factual finding of the jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses that there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings. Odom v. Weathersbee, 225 S.C. 253, 81 S.E.2d 788 (1954).
2. In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the judge will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings. The rule is the same whether the judge's findings are made with or without, a reference. The judge's findings are equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action. Chapman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 263 S.C. 565, 211 S.E.2d 876 (1974).
3. In an action in equity, tried by the judge alone, without a reference, on appeal the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its views of the preponderance of the evidence. Crowder v. Crowder, 246 S.C. 299, 143 S.E.2d 580 (1965).
4. In an action in equity, tried first by the master or a special referee and concurred in by the judge, the judge, the findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless found to be without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Ex Parte, Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 255 S.C. 106, 177 S.E.2d 358 (1970).
5. In an action in equity where the master, or the special referee, is in disagreement with the judge on a factual finding, this Court may make findings in accordance with its own views of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland Cnty.
...upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings.” Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976). “The judge's findings are equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action.” Id. (citing Chapman v. Allsta......
-
Eldridge v. Greenwood
...of law and reviews factual findings only for evidence which reasonably supports the court's findings. Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). However, the interpretation of a deed is an equitable matter. Heritage Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Eagle Lake & Golf ......
-
Williams v. Riedman
...facts determined by the jury unless there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings. Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976); Brown v. Smalls, 325 S.C. 547, 481 S.E.2d 444 An individual working for an employer under a contract of emp......
-
Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers
...a review of the record discloses that there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings. Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). LAW AND I. APPELLANT'S STATUS AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, PUBLIC FIGURE, OR PRIVATE FIGURE Appellant argues the ......
-
Chapter II Public Construction Projects - State and Local
...funds received as a result of the unauthorized conduct of a government employee."). But see Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976) abrogated on other grounds by, In re Estate of Kay, 423 S.C. 476, 816 S.E.2d 542 (2018).[35] Carolina Power & Light Co. v......
-
A. State Procurement
...funds received as a result of the unauthorized conduct of a government employee."). But see Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976).[36] Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Darlington Cnty., 315 S.C. 5, 431 S.E.2d 580, 583 (1993).[37] See generally 73A C.J.S.......
-
Chapter 39 Trial by Jury or the Court
...cause of action. See Pelfrey v. Bank of Greer, 270 S.C. 691, 244 S.E.2d 315 (1978).[16] Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). See also Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 538 n.11, 818 S.E.2d 758, 768 n.11 (2018) (appellat......
-
Chapter 52 Findings by the Court
...394 (Ct. App. 1994), rev'd in part on other grounds, 322 S.C. 489, 473 S.E.2d 47 (1996).[36] Townes Assocs. Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). See also Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 538 n.11, 818 S.E.2d 758, 768 n.11 (2018) (wher......