Builderama, Inc. v. Morton

415 S.E.2d 796, 307 S.C. 440, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 65
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 16, 1992
Docket23596
StatusPublished

This text of 415 S.E.2d 796 (Builderama, Inc. v. Morton) 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
Builderama, Inc. v. Morton, 415 S.E.2d 796, 307 S.C. 440, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 65 (S.C. 1992).

Opinion

Harwell, Chief Justice:

The issue is whether the trial judge erred in denying appellant Otto Morton d/b/a Morton Home Builders a jury trial. We reverse and remand for trial.

I. FACTS

Respondent Builderama, Inc. instituted a collection action against appellant for the balance due on a commercial credit account. Appellant denied the allegations of the complaint, asserted a counterclaim, and demanded a jury trial. The trial judge denied appellant’s demand for a jury trial and referred the action to the master-in-equity.

II. DISCUSSION

Appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in denying him a jury trial. We agree.

Issues of fact in an action for the recovery of money must be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial be waived. Rule 38(a), SCRCP. The compulsory order of reference to the master-in[441]*441equity deprived appellant of a mode of trial to which he is entitled as a matter of right, and thus was improper.

We hold that the trial judge erred in denying appellant a jury trial. The order of the trial judge denying appellant’s demand for a jury trial is reversed, and the case remanded for trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Chandler, Finney, Toal and Moore, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 S.E.2d 796, 307 S.C. 440, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/builderama-inc-v-morton-sc-1992.