From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graham v. Kerns

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 19, 1982
294 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 1982)

Opinion

21756

July 19, 1982.

Ellis Merritt, Jr., of Louthian Merritt, Columbia, for appellant.

Pope D. Johnson, III, of Whaley, McCutchen Blanton, Columbia, for respondent.


July 19, 1982.


This is a contract action. Testimony concerning an installment contract was heard by a master who found appellant owed respondent $15,618.67. The master's findings were affirmed by the circuit court and judgment entered against appellant. This appeal is from entry of the judgment. We affirm.

Appellant made three exceptions to the circuit court's entry of judgment: (1) The judge erred in affirming the findings and conclusions in the report of the Master-in-Equity, dated December 19, 1979; (2) The judge erred in overruling the exceptions of the appellant: (3) The judge erred in ordering that judgment be entered against the appellant in the amount of $15,618.67. All three exceptions are general in nature and, therefore, violate Rule 4, § 6 of the Rules of Practice of this Court. Since the exceptions point out no particular error of law or fact, this Court would be required to re-try the entire case. Bogart v. First Citizens Bank Trust Co., 273 S.C. 179, 255 S.E.2d 449 (1979); Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). See also Burroughs v. Royal Arcadian Resorts, Smith's Advance Sheets of October 31, 1981.

Nevertheless, we have considered appellant's argument and find it without merit. The entry of judgment and order of the lower court are, therefore, affirmed.


Summaries of

Graham v. Kerns

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 19, 1982
294 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 1982)
Case details for

Graham v. Kerns

Case Details

Full title:Barbara L. GRAHAM, Respondent, v. Andrew V. KERNS, Jr., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jul 19, 1982

Citations

294 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 1982)
294 S.E.2d 38

Citing Cases

Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of S.C

The exceptions do not state why the UTPA cause of action should have been dismissed and why the UTPA should…

Ag-Chem Equipment Co. v. Daggerhart

The exceptions fail to state any concise proposition of law or fact to be reviewed by this Court as is…