From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

F. Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass Mirror, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 29, 1980
266 S.E.2d 67 (S.C. 1980)

Opinion

21209

April 29, 1980.

S. Thomas Worley, Jr., of Bradley Worley, Mount Pleasant, for appellant. J. Rutledge Young, Jr., of Young, Clement Rivers, Charleston, for respondent.


April 29, 1980.


The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant-respondent and this appeal ensued. We dismiss.

The appellant has abandoned two of his assignments of error, thus leaving only the following exception as the basis of appeal:

That the trial judge committed error in directing a verdict in favor of defendant-respondent.

Even a cursory reading of the exception reveals its lack of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6. Since the exception is too general and does not present the points of law or fact the appellant wishes this Court to review, we must apply the aforementioned rule to prevent the vice it envisions. Were we to hold otherwise, this Court would be required to review all of the evidence and retry the whole case. Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976).

Despite this insufficiency, we have reviewed the record and determined the appeal to be without merit.

Appeal dismissed.

LITTLEJOHN, NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

F. Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass Mirror, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 29, 1980
266 S.E.2d 67 (S.C. 1980)
Case details for

F. Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass Mirror, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK RICHARDS, INC., Appellant, v. PORT CITY GLASS MIRROR, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 29, 1980

Citations

266 S.E.2d 67 (S.C. 1980)
266 S.E.2d 67

Citing Cases

Smith v. S.C. Dept. of Soc. Serv

Such a predicament has often been deplored by our State's highest court and used by that tribunal as a basis…