Case Name: William N. GEIGER, Respondent, v. CAROLINA POOL EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1971-11-01
Citations: 257 S.C. 112
Docket Number: 19304
Parties: William N. GEIGER, Respondent, v. CAROLINA POOL EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 257
Pages: 112–114

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.