From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Dec 4, 1973
201 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1973)

Opinion

19734

December 4, 1973.

Messrs. McNair, Konduros, Corley, Singletary Dibble, of Columbia, for Appellant. Messrs. Powell, Kligman Fleming, of Columbia and Charles B. Barnwell of Horger Horger, and Edward Mirmow, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.


December 4, 1973.


This is an action by plaintiff bank to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. The respondent Mary E. Jones and Leon Jones, now deceased, were the mortgagors. The appellant United American Life Insurance Company was made a party because of the issuance by it of a credit life insurance policy upon the life of the said Leon Jones, which policy United contends was duly cancelled by it prior to the death of Leon Jones.

Appellant United appeals from an order of the lower court denying its motion for summary judgment made pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44. This Court having adopted the general rule that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory decision which is not directly appealable, Geiger v. Carolina Pool Equipment Distributors, Inc., 257 S.C. 112, 184 S.E.2d 446, the appellant has petitioned for leave to argue against said decision and has urged this Court to either overrule or modify the same.

We have carefully considered the briefs and argument of the appellant and are not presently convinced that we should either modify or overrule said decision. The appeal is, accordingly,

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Dec 4, 1973
201 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1973)
Case details for

Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:The GREENWICH SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. Mary E. JONES and all other…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Dec 4, 1973

Citations

201 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1973)
201 S.E.2d 244

Citing Cases

Wright v. Craft

anything about the merits of the case. . . . Therefore, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not…

U.S. Fid. Guar. Co. v. City of Spartanburg

In support of this rule we cited 4 Am. Jur.2d. Appeal and Error, § 104, at page 622, and also an annotation…