From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pendergrass v. Martin

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nov 12, 1980
272 S.E.2d 172 (S.C. 1980)

Opinion

21324

November 12, 1980.

Daniel Fulton, Columbia, for appellant. Gordon B. Jenkinson, Kingstree, for respondent.


November 12, 1980.


Under Rule 89 of the Circuit Court Rules, answers to a request for admissions must be served within ten (10) days after the service of the request. Defendant served request for admissions on plaintiff and plaintiff failed to answer them within the ten day period. After the time for answering the request had expired, the trial judge granted plaintiff an extension of time to respond. The defendant has appealed from that ruling.

The order granting an extension of time in which to answer a request for admissions is intermediate or interlocutory in nature and does not involve the merits or a substantial right under Section 14-3-330 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976), but is reviewable after final judgment under Section 18-1-130 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976).

See: Wallace v. Interamerican Trust Company, 246 S.C. 563, 144 S.E.2d 813; Kemmerlin v. Bloom, 251 S.C. 49, 159 S.E.2d 910.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

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


Summaries of

Pendergrass v. Martin

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nov 12, 1980
272 S.E.2d 172 (S.C. 1980)
Case details for

Pendergrass v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:Willie PENDERGRASS, Respondent, v. Louise MARTIN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Nov 12, 1980

Citations

272 S.E.2d 172 (S.C. 1980)
272 S.E.2d 172

Citing Cases

Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp.

Pendergrassv. Martin, 275 S.C. 413, 272 S.E.2d 172 (1980). Avoidance of trial is not a "substantial right"…

Jacobs v. Harman

The order overruling the objections to the Requests for Admissions is also not appealable before final…