Friarsgate, Inc. v. Town of Irmo

316 S.E.2d 423, 281 S.C. 588, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 467
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedMay 14, 1984
Docket0173
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 316 S.E.2d 423 (Friarsgate, Inc. v. Town of Irmo) 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
Friarsgate, Inc. v. Town of Irmo, 316 S.E.2d 423, 281 S.C. 588, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 467 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Shaw, Judge:

This appeal is from a circuit court order denying a motion by appellants — Town of Irmo, et al, for a change of venue. We affirm.

Respondent Friarsgate, Inc. commenced this action challenging the constitutionality and reasonableness of appellants’ zoning ordinance as it applies to certain lands owned by Friarsgate lying in the Richland County portion of the Town of Irmo which also has portions of its corporate limits in Lexington County.

Appellants seek an order changing the venue from Lexington County to Richland County and cite Section 15-7-10, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, which states in pertinent part:

Actions for the following causes must be tried in the county in which the subject of the action or some part thereof is situated ...
(1) For the recovery of real property or of an estate or interest therein or for the determination in any form of such right or interest and for injuries to real property.

This statute is not applicable to this case. Respondent is not suing to recover an estate or interest in real property, nor is it suing for a determination that it has an estate or interest in real property. Its challenge is to the exercise of the police power by the town of Irmo.

[590]*590We hold that where a municipality has corporate limits in more than one county, an action may be brought in either of the representative counties.

Affirmed.

Sanders, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

Rhodes v. Eadon
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
316 S.E.2d 423, 281 S.C. 588, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friarsgate-inc-v-town-of-irmo-scctapp-1984.