Case Name: FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent v. HITMAN, INC., Mark D. Axler, Sherry A. Axler, NCNB South Carolina, Of whom Hitman Inc., is Petitioner, and Chris Construction Company is, Intervenor
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1992-05-26
Citations: 308 S.C. 421
Docket Number: 23663
Parties: FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent v. HITMAN, INC., Mark D. Axler, Sherry A. Axler, NCNB South Carolina, Of whom Hitman Inc., is Petitioner, and Chris Construction Company is, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 308
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
23663
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent v. HITMAN, INC., Mark D. Axler, Sherry A. Axler, NCNB South Carolina, Of whom Hitman Inc., is Petitioner, and Chris Construction Company is, Intervenor.
(418 S.E. (2d) 545)
Supreme Court
W. Brantley Harvey, Jr. and John M. Tatum, III, both of Harvey & Battey, P.A., Beaufort, for petitioner.
Edward E. Bullard, Hilton Head Island, for intervenor.
Russell P. Patterson, of Jones, Scheider & Patterson, P.A., Hilton Head Island, and E. Douglas Pratt-Thomas, of Wise and Cole, Charleston, for respondent.
George E. Mullen, Hilton Head Island, for NCNB South Carolina.
Submitted April 20, 1992.
Decided May 26, 1992.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in First Union National Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, et al., — S.C. — , 411 S.E. (2d) 681 (Ct. App. 1991). We affirm.
The sole question before us is whether a trial judge commits reversible error by issuing a written order which is in conflict with his prior oral ruling from the bench. We agree with the analysis of the Court of Appeals, and hold that a judge is not bound by the prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling. To the extent McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E. (2d) 338 (1983), is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.