Frederick Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Frederick Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc.

266 S.E.2d 67, 274 S.C. 558, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 327

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 29, 1980

Docket21209

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 S.E.2d 67 (Frederick Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc.) 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

Frederick Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc., 266 S.E.2d 67, 274 S.C. 558, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 327 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, Chief Justice:

The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant-respondent and this appeal ensued. We dismiss.

The appellant has abandoned two of his assignments of error, thus leaving only the following exception as the basis of appeal:

That the trial judge committed error in directing a verdict in favor of defendant-respondent.

Even a cursory reading of the exception reveals its lack of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6. Since the exception is too general and does not present the points of law or fact the appellant wishes this Court to review, we must apply the aforementioned rule to prevent the vice it envisions. Were we to hold otherwise, this Court would be required to review all of the evidence and retry the whole case. Williams v. Regula, 266 S. C. 228, 222 S. E. (2d) 7 (1976).

Despite this insufficiency, we have reviewed the record and determined the appeal to be without merit.

Appeal dismissed.

Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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