Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc.

203 S.E.2d 426, 262 S.C. 185, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 286

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided January 7, 1974·No. 19748·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an action by Carl Medlin, Guardian ad Litem for Teresa Medlin, the respondent herein, against W. T. Grant, Inc., appellant, to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The appellant’s answer was a general denial and the defense of res judicata.

The appellant, pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44, moved before The Honorable Michael D. Glenn, Judge of the Anderson County Court, for a summary judgment.

The motion was refused and the appellant prosecutes this appeal therefrom.

In the case of Geiger v. Carolina Pool Equipment Distributors, Inc., 257 S. C. 112, 184 S. E. (2d) 446, we held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is *186 an. interlocutory decision and not directly appealable. In support of this rule we cited 4 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, Section 104, at page 622, and also an annotation found in 15 A. L. R. (3d) 899. In the recent case of Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones, S. C., 201 S. E. (2d) 244 (1973), we reaffirmed the foregoing rule.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an action by Carl Medlin, Guardian ad Litem for Teresa Medlin, the respondent herein, against W. T. Grant, Inc., appellant, to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The appellant’s answer was a general denial and the defense of res judicata.

The appellant, pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44, moved before The Honorable Michael D. Glenn, Judge of the Anderson County Court, for a summary judgment.

The motion was refused and the appellant prosecutes this appeal therefrom.

In the case of Geiger v. Carolina Pool Equipment Distributors, Inc., 257 S. C. 112, 184 S. E. (2d) 446, we held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is *186 an. interlocutory decision and not directly appealable. In support of this rule we cited 4 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, Section 104, at page 622, and also an annotation found in 15 A. L. R. (3d) 899. In the recent case of Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones, S. C., 201 S. E. (2d) 244 (1973), we reaffirmed the foregoing rule.

The appeal is dismissed.

Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc., 203 S.E.2d 426, 262 S.C. 185, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 286 (S.C. 1974).

Pincite

203 S.E.2d 426 (Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related