Bishop ex rel. Thompson v. Battle

374 S.E.2d 497, 296 S.C. 512, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 125
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 14, 1988
Docket22923
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 374 S.E.2d 497 (Bishop ex rel. Thompson v. Battle) 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
Bishop ex rel. Thompson v. Battle, 374 S.E.2d 497, 296 S.C. 512, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 125 (S.C. 1988).

Opinion

Chandler, Justice:

Appellant Harold Thompson (Thompson) excepts to the Circuit Court’s dismissal of his appeal from an order of the Probate Court. We reverse and remand.

Respondent Annie Lou Bishop (Bishop) commenced this action in the Probate Court of Union County to prove the will of the decedent, Gessie Thompson (Gessie). Thompson and other defendants contested the will, contending that Gessie’s signature was a forgery.

After a hearing on July 10,1987, the Probate Court admitted the will to probate. Although the Court advised that a written order would be entered that day, the order was not filed until July 15, 1987. In the interim, on July 11, 1987, Thompson, acting pro se, filed exceptions to the ruling.

Thereafter, Bishop moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the appeal, alleging that Thompson had failed to timely file his grounds of appeal as required by S. C. Code Ann. § 62-1-308(a) (1987) [recodifying S. C. Code Ann. § 18-5-20 (1985) ]. The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed as untimely.

Section 62-1-308, which provides for appeals from Probate Court to the Circuit Court, requires that the grounds of appeal be filed in the office of the Probate Court within 'fifteen days after receipt of notice of the decision appealed from.

Although Thompson filed his exceptions with the Probate Court prior to entry of the written order, his actions constituted sufficient compliance with § 62-l-308(a). See Sherbert v. School Dist. No. 85, 169 S. C. 191, 168 S. E. 391 (1933); [514]*514Wallace v. Columbia & G.R. Co., 36 S. C. 599, 15 S. E. 452 (1892). Accordingly, the Circuit Court’s order is reversed and the case remanded for consideration of Thompson’s exceptions.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Finney and Toal, .JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mims v. Alston
440 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1994)
Eagles v. South Carolina National Bank
392 S.E.2d 187 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 S.E.2d 497, 296 S.C. 512, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-ex-rel-thompson-v-battle-sc-1988.