Savannah Supply Co. v. Ross

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Savannah Supply Co. v. Ross

122 S.E. 773, 128 S.C. 298, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 217

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 9, 1924

Docket11503

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 773 (Savannah Supply Co. v. Ross) 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

Savannah Supply Co. v. Ross, 122 S.E. 773, 128 S.C. 298, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 217 (S.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

In an action on account, commenced August 22, 1922, in the County Court of Greenville County, the plaintiff recovered judgment by default, May 24, 1923. Notice of appearance was served by defendant’s counsel on September 11, *299 1922, but no answer was ever filed. Notice of motion to set aside the judgment by default was served on plaintiff’s attorney on July 13, 1923. From an order of Hon. M. F. Ansel, County Judge, refusing the motion to open and set aside the judgment, the defendant appeals.

The motion to vacate was made under the provisions of ■Section 437, Code Civ. Proc. 1922, nearly 11 months after the service of the summons and complaint. By the express terms of the statute such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the Court. The County Judge found, in substance, that the facts adduced by defendant to support his .application neither established such due diligence nor made such prima facie showing of a good and meritorious defense as entitled him to the relief sought. Even where there has been mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, there is no abuse of discretion in refusing to open a judgment, in the absence of a satisfactory prima facie showing that the applying party has a good and meritorious cause of action or defense. 23 Cyc., 962. Sarratt v. Manufacturing Co., 77 S. C., 91; 57 S. E., 616. Careful examination of the record discloses no sufficient basis for a conclusion that there was any abuse of discretion in refusing the ■defendant’s motion in the case at bar. The ruling, therefore, •cannot be disturbed by this Court. Le Conte v. Irwin, 19 S. C., 557. White v. Coleman, 38 S. C., 556; 17 S. E., 21. Odom v. Burch, 52 S. C., 305; 29 S. E., 726. Washington v. Hesse, 56 S. C., 28; 33 S. E., 787.

Affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser and Cothran concur.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

In an action on account, commenced August 22, 1922, in the County Court of Greenville County, the plaintiff recovered judgment by default, May 24, 1923. Notice of appearance was served by defendant’s counsel on September 11, *299 1922, but no answer was ever filed. Notice of motion to set aside the judgment by default was served on plaintiff’s attorney on July 13, 1923. From an order of Hon. M. F. Ansel, County Judge, refusing the motion to open and set aside the judgment, the defendant appeals.

The motion to vacate was made under the provisions of ■Section 437, Code Civ. Proc. 1922, nearly 11 months after the service of the summons and complaint. By the express terms of the statute such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the Court. The County Judge found, in substance, that the facts adduced by defendant to support his .application neither established such due diligence nor made such prima facie showing of a good and meritorious defense as entitled him to the relief sought. Even where there has been mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, there is no abuse of discretion in refusing to open a judgment, in the absence of a satisfactory prima facie showing that the applying party has a good and meritorious cause of action or defense. 23 Cyc., 962. Sarratt v. Manufacturing Co., 77 S. C., 91; 57 S. E., 616. Careful examination of the record discloses no sufficient basis for a conclusion that there was any abuse of discretion in refusing the ■defendant’s motion in the case at bar. The ruling, therefore, •cannot be disturbed by this Court. Le Conte v. Irwin, 19 S. C., 557. White v. Coleman, 38 S. C., 556; 17 S. E., 21. Odom v. Burch, 52 S. C., 305; 29 S. E., 726. Washington v. Hesse, 56 S. C., 28; 33 S. E., 787.

Affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser and Cothran concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 773, 128 S.C. 298, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-supply-co-v-ross-sc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack