Edgefield County Hospital Trustees v. Cannon Construction & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Edgefield County Hospital Trustees v. Cannon Construction & Supply Co.

257 S.E.2d 501, 273 S.C. 500, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 451

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 8, 1979

Docket21026

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 501 (Edgefield County Hospital Trustees v. Cannon Construction & Supply 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

Edgefield County Hospital Trustees v. Cannon Construction & Supply Co., 257 S.E.2d 501, 273 S.C. 500, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 451 (S.C. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

At the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs, Edge-field County Hospital Trustees, made Cannon Construction [501]*501and Supply Company, Inc. the sole defendant. Thereafter, the circuit judge, with the consent of both the plaintiffs and the sole defendant, made Lafaye, Lafaye and Associates, Pound Roofing Company, Inc., and Bird and Son, Inc. parties-defendant, so as to allow the defendant Cannon to interpose a cross-action. Bird and Son, Inc. has appealed, submitting that the judge erred in adding it as a party-defendant without notice and opportunity to be heard.

Two basic determinations by this court are dispositive of all issues. First, is the order appealable? and, if appealable, secondly, did the trial judge err? Both issues are decided adversely to the appellant. Traditionally, under our procedures, parties have been added without notice and opportunity to be heard. There is no statutory law requiring notice. The selection of parties-defendant is basically a matter for determination by the claimant, and counsel for a claimant need not notify one in advance that he will be sued.

While we think that the order was not appealable, inasmuch as the matter is before us, we additionally rule that the lower court did not err. Mack Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 108 S. C. 163, 93 S. E. 713 (1917).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

At the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs, Edge-field County Hospital Trustees, made Cannon Construction [501]*501and Supply Company, Inc. the sole defendant. Thereafter, the circuit judge, with the consent of both the plaintiffs and the sole defendant, made Lafaye, Lafaye and Associates, Pound Roofing Company, Inc., and Bird and Son, Inc. parties-defendant, so as to allow the defendant Cannon to interpose a cross-action. Bird and Son, Inc. has appealed, submitting that the judge erred in adding it as a party-defendant without notice and opportunity to be heard.

Two basic determinations by this court are dispositive of all issues. First, is the order appealable? and, if appealable, secondly, did the trial judge err? Both issues are decided adversely to the appellant. Traditionally, under our procedures, parties have been added without notice and opportunity to be heard. There is no statutory law requiring notice. The selection of parties-defendant is basically a matter for determination by the claimant, and counsel for a claimant need not notify one in advance that he will be sued.

While we think that the order was not appealable, inasmuch as the matter is before us, we additionally rule that the lower court did not err. Mack Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 108 S. C. 163, 93 S. E. 713 (1917).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.E.2d 501, 273 S.C. 500, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgefield-county-hospital-trustees-v-cannon-construction-supply-co-sc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack