Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

Willie PENDERGRASS, Respondent, v. Louise MARTIN, Appellant.

November 12, 1980.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PENDERGRASS v. MARTIN
(Nov 12, 1980)