Case ID: sc_257/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

19304
    William N. GEIGER, Respondent, v. CAROLINA POOL EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant
    (184 S. E. (2d) 446)
    
      Messrs. F. Barron Grier, III, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, and Thomas H. Curlee, Jr., of Lourie & Draine, Columbia, for Appellant, cite:
    
      
      T. Patton Adams, Esq., of Graydon & Súber, Columbia, for Respondent, cites:
    
      Messrs. R. Bruce Shaw, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, cmd Thomas H. Curlee, Jr., of Lourie & Draine, Columbia, for Appellant, in Reply, cite:
    November 1, 1971.
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment. The motion was made pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44, as amended. Respondent’s contention that the order is not directly appealable is sustained.

An order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory decision and not directly appealable. The following from 4 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, Section 104. p. 622, states the foregoing general rule and the reasons underlying it:

“However, the prevailing view seems to be that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory decision only and therefore not directly appealable, since such a denial is not an adjudication on the merits against the movant and he is not thereby foreclosed from the possibility of prevailing* in the case when the facts are developed, * * *.”

An annotation on the subject may be found in 15 A. L. R. (3d) 899.

Appeal dismissed.