Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

255 S.E.2d 449, 273 S.C. 179, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 373

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 23, 1979

Docket20967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 S.E.2d 449 (Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.) 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

Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 255 S.E.2d 449, 273 S.C. 179, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 373 (S.C. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Ness, Justice:

Appellant Bogart brought this action for fraud and negligence against the respondent bank and one of its employees. This appeal is from an order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents on three causes of action. We affirm.

Appellant’s single exception states: “The Honorable Court of Common Pleas erred in ordering Summary Judgment as to Causes of Action One, Four and *180 Five.” This is clearly in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, which requires that each exception must contain a concise' statement of one proposition of law or fact. Solley v. Weaver, 247 S. C. 129, 146 S. E. (2d) 164 (1966); Larry’s Wheel and Rim, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina, S. C., 246 S. E. (2d) 860 (1978).

When an exception fails to assign a specification of error sufficient to comply with Rule 4, § 6, this Court has nothing to review. Odom v. The County of Florence, 258 S. C. 480, 189 S. E. (2d) 293 (1972). Nevertheless, we have considered the merits of this case and have concluded summary judgment was properly granted. Watts v. Monarch Builders, Inc., et al., S. C., 252 S. E. (2d) 889 (1979).

Affirmed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ-, concur.

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

Ness, Justice:

Appellant Bogart brought this action for fraud and negligence against the respondent bank and one of its employees. This appeal is from an order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents on three causes of action. We affirm.

Appellant’s single exception states: “The Honorable Court of Common Pleas erred in ordering Summary Judgment as to Causes of Action One, Four and *180 Five.” This is clearly in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, which requires that each exception must contain a concise' statement of one proposition of law or fact. Solley v. Weaver, 247 S. C. 129, 146 S. E. (2d) 164 (1966); Larry’s Wheel and Rim, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina, S. C., 246 S. E. (2d) 860 (1978).

When an exception fails to assign a specification of error sufficient to comply with Rule 4, § 6, this Court has nothing to review. Odom v. The County of Florence, 258 S. C. 480, 189 S. E. (2d) 293 (1972). Nevertheless, we have considered the merits of this case and have concluded summary judgment was properly granted. Watts v. Monarch Builders, Inc., et al., S. C., 252 S. E. (2d) 889 (1979).

Affirmed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ-, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 S.E.2d 449, 273 S.C. 179, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bogart-v-first-citizens-bank-trust-co-sc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack