Court Opinion

ID: 9567638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:56:18.007238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:44.816452
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(concurring in result) :
I concur in result of the opinion of Mr. Justice Lewis. In my view the Court need not distinguish the cases relied upon by appellant. Section 10-409 of the Code expressly grants the trial judge discretion to allow amended proof of service at any time unless “it clearly appears that material prejudice would result.” Corley v. Wells, 224 S. C. 198, 78 S. E. (2d) 186 (1953). The trial court found the defendant’s son was a person of discretion and service was proper. There was no abuse of discretion. She did not fail to answer. ;relying on the *524error in proof of service as being jurisdictional; rather she asserts the boy never delivered papers to her. In any event she has suffered no prejudice as the trial court extended her time to answer.