Bell Lines, Inc. v. Strickland

173 S.E.2d 788, 254 S.C. 148, 1970 S.C. LEXIS 214
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 16, 1970
Docket19043
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 173 S.E.2d 788 (Bell Lines, Inc. v. Strickland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell Lines, Inc. v. Strickland, 173 S.E.2d 788, 254 S.C. 148, 1970 S.C. LEXIS 214 (S.C. 1970).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action by Bell Lines, Inc., against C. F. Strickland for freight charges allegedly due on a shipment of tires, the defendant set up two counterclaims. The plaintiff demurred to the second counterclaim, which is based upon alleged abuse of process, for insufficiency of facts, and appeals from an order of the circuit court overruling the demurrer.

The demurrer should have been sustained. In essence the counterclaim to which it was directed alleges that prior to the commencement of the action the plaintiff harassed the defendant for payment of an alleged debt which it knew was not due, and published the alleged debt to various collecting agencies to injure the defendant’s credit; that these acts and the subsequent commencement of this action were done mali *150 ciously, and “amount to a malicious use of legal process to collect a debt which (the) defendant never owed.”

No process was involved in any act done by plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action. The mere commencement of a civil action by the service of a summons, as required by the Code, can not amount to the tort known as abuse of process, which is the “malicious misuse or perversion of the process for an end not lawfully warranted by it * * Huggins v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 249 S. C. 206, 209, 153 S. E. (2d) 693, 695 (1967). Here, the process was used only for the conventional purpose of obtaining jurisdiction of the defendant in a civil action.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
567 S.E.2d 251 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2002)
Robert A. Sanders v. Friendship
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998
John C. Edwards, III v. Hoar Construction
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1997
Gwendolyn Scott v. Autumn Care of Portsmouth
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1995
Deborah A. Fisher v. VA Electric & Power Company
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1995
First Union Mortgage Corp. v. Thomas
451 S.E.2d 907 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1994)
Scott v. McCain
274 S.E.2d 299 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)
Bostick Oil Co. v. Michelin Tire Corp.
478 F. Supp. 68 (D. South Carolina, 1979)
Russell v. Risher
249 S.E.2d 908 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 S.E.2d 788, 254 S.C. 148, 1970 S.C. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-lines-inc-v-strickland-sc-1970.