Jacobs v. Harman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Jacobs v. Harman

316 S.E.2d 146, 282 S.C. 17, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 311

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 30, 1984

Docket22121

StatusPublished

This text of 316 S.E.2d 146 (Jacobs v. Harman) 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

Jacobs v. Harman, 316 S.E.2d 146, 282 S.C. 17, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 311 (S.C. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appellant partnership initiated this action for specific performance of an option to purchase real estate. The trial judge denied the appellant’s Motion to Strike portions of the respondent’s Answer and overruled the appellant's objections to the repondent’s Requests for Admissions.

The parties assert that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the denial of the Motion to Strike because it is in the nature of a demurrer. Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S. C. 95, 113 S. E. (2d) 337 (1960). The Thomas rule does not apply to this equitable action for specific performance. The trial judge can best determine what is relevant in equity cases aféer introduction of the evidence. Smith v. Heyward, 110 S. C. 148, 96 S. E. 289 (1918); Pelfrey v. Bank of Greer, 270 S. C. 691, 244 S. E. (2d) 315 (1978).

The order overruling the objections to the Requests for Admissions is also not appealable before final judgment. See Pendergrass v. Martin, 275 S. C. 413, 272 S. E. (2d) 172 (1980).

We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal without prejudice to raise the issue at trial.

Dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

The appellant partnership initiated this action for specific performance of an option to purchase real estate. The trial judge denied the appellant’s Motion to Strike portions of the respondent’s Answer and overruled the appellant's objections to the repondent’s Requests for Admissions.

The parties assert that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the denial of the Motion to Strike because it is in the nature of a demurrer. Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S. C. 95, 113 S. E. (2d) 337 (1960). The Thomas rule does not apply to this equitable action for specific performance. The trial judge can best determine what is relevant in equity cases aféer introduction of the evidence. Smith v. Heyward, 110 S. C. 148, 96 S. E. 289 (1918); Pelfrey v. Bank of Greer, 270 S. C. 691, 244 S. E. (2d) 315 (1978).

The order overruling the objections to the Requests for Admissions is also not appealable before final judgment. See Pendergrass v. Martin, 275 S. C. 413, 272 S. E. (2d) 172 (1980).

We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal without prejudice to raise the issue at trial.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 S.E.2d 146, 282 S.C. 17, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-harman-sc-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack