Davie v. Atkinson Ex Rel. Estate of Atkinson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Davie v. Atkinson Ex Rel. Estate of Atkinson

313 S.E.2d 648, 281 S.C. 102, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 413

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 12, 1984

Docket0122

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 313 S.E.2d 648 (Davie v. Atkinson Ex Rel. Estate of Atkinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davie v. Atkinson Ex Rel. Estate of Atkinson, 313 S.E.2d 648, 281 S.C. 102, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 413 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, Judge:

Appellants brought this action for recovery of land, accounting for rents and damages. Respondents answered but did not plead a statute of limitation; respondents then moved for judgment on the pleadings, 1 which was granted by the trial judge. The appealed order held the appellants’ causes of action were barred by the statutes of limitation. We reverse and remand.

The appealed order is fatally erroneous because the reason for entry of judgment for respondents is based upon appellants’ causes of action being barred by the statutes of limitation; this defense was not pleaded by respondents and therefore not available to them. A statute of limitation is an affirmative defense which must be raised by answer. Section 15-13-360, S. C. Code of Laws, 1976. Furthermore, a limitation statute is a statute of grace, permitting the avoidance and evasion of liability in applicable cases; and while given recognition when pleaded, it has never been favored by the courts. Scovill v. Johnson, 190 S. C. 457, 3 S. E. (2d) 543 (1939).

Accordingly, the appealed order is reversed and the case remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary.

Reversed and remanded.

Cureton and Goolsby, JJ., concur.

1

Judgment on the pleadings may be granted in proper eases but our courts consider it a drastic procedure. See United States Casualty Company v. Hiers, 233 S. C. 333, 104 S. E. (2d) 561 (1958).

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

Gardner, Judge:

Appellants brought this action for recovery of land, accounting for rents and damages. Respondents answered but did not plead a statute of limitation; respondents then moved for judgment on the pleadings, 1 which was granted by the trial judge. The appealed order held the appellants’ causes of action were barred by the statutes of limitation. We reverse and remand.

The appealed order is fatally erroneous because the reason for entry of judgment for respondents is based upon appellants’ causes of action being barred by the statutes of limitation; this defense was not pleaded by respondents and therefore not available to them. A statute of limitation is an affirmative defense which must be raised by answer. Section 15-13-360, S. C. Code of Laws, 1976. Furthermore, a limitation statute is a statute of grace, permitting the avoidance and evasion of liability in applicable cases; and while given recognition when pleaded, it has never been favored by the courts. Scovill v. Johnson, 190 S. C. 457, 3 S. E. (2d) 543 (1939).

Accordingly, the appealed order is reversed and the case remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary.

Reversed and remanded.

Cureton and Goolsby, JJ., concur.

1

Judgment on the pleadings may be granted in proper eases but our courts consider it a drastic procedure. See United States Casualty Company v. Hiers, 233 S. C. 333, 104 S. E. (2d) 561 (1958).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.E.2d 648, 281 S.C. 102, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davie-v-atkinson-ex-rel-estate-of-atkinson-scctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack