John D. Hollingsworth on Wheels, Inc. v. Arkon Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

John D. Hollingsworth on Wheels, Inc. v. Arkon Corp.

257 S.E.2d 165, 273 S.C. 461, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 426

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 26, 1979

Docket21014

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 165 (John D. Hollingsworth on Wheels, Inc. v. Arkon Corp.) 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

John D. Hollingsworth on Wheels, Inc. v. Arkon Corp., 257 S.E.2d 165, 273 S.C. 461, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 426 (S.C. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from the lower court’s orders denying appellant’s motions for summary judgment and maintaining equitable jurisdiction over the entire controversy. We affirm.

While appellant raises numerous questions on appeal, we need only consider its first exception- which alleges the lower court erred in denying Arkon a jury trial on its counterclaim for damages arising from respondent’s alleged contractual breach. Appellant asserts its counter-claim was compulsory and thus the lower court erred in failing to grant its motion for a jury trial. We disagree.

In Kirven v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 77 S. C. 493, 58 S. E. 424 (1907) affirmed, 215 U. S. 252, 30 S. Ct. 78, 54 L. Ed. 179 (1909), this Court rejected the contention that compulsory counter-claims were statutorily mandated in contract actions. Hence, it is clear that Arkon would have answered Hollingsworth’s complaint without assert *463 ing its counter-claim. By electing to assert its counter-claim in response to Hollingsworth’s equitable action, Arkon waived its right to a jury trial. Welborn v. Cobb, 92 S. C. 384, 75 S. E. 691 (1912). Accordingly, the orders of the lower court are affirmed.

We have considered the remaining questions raised by appellant and conclude they are without merit or precedential value. Accordingly, they are dismissed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court.

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

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from the lower court’s orders denying appellant’s motions for summary judgment and maintaining equitable jurisdiction over the entire controversy. We affirm.

While appellant raises numerous questions on appeal, we need only consider its first exception- which alleges the lower court erred in denying Arkon a jury trial on its counterclaim for damages arising from respondent’s alleged contractual breach. Appellant asserts its counter-claim was compulsory and thus the lower court erred in failing to grant its motion for a jury trial. We disagree.

In Kirven v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 77 S. C. 493, 58 S. E. 424 (1907) affirmed, 215 U. S. 252, 30 S. Ct. 78, 54 L. Ed. 179 (1909), this Court rejected the contention that compulsory counter-claims were statutorily mandated in contract actions. Hence, it is clear that Arkon would have answered Hollingsworth’s complaint without assert *463 ing its counter-claim. By electing to assert its counter-claim in response to Hollingsworth’s equitable action, Arkon waived its right to a jury trial. Welborn v. Cobb, 92 S. C. 384, 75 S. E. 691 (1912). Accordingly, the orders of the lower court are affirmed.

We have considered the remaining questions raised by appellant and conclude they are without merit or precedential value. Accordingly, they are dismissed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.E.2d 165, 273 S.C. 461, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-d-hollingsworth-on-wheels-inc-v-arkon-corp-sc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack