Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 255 S.E.2d 449 (S.C. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 255 S.E.2d 449 (S.C. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clark v. Aiken Cnty. Gov't, 620 S.E.2d 99 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)
How cited ↗
Cited for
255 S.E.2d at 450 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Clark v. Aiken Cnty. Gov't, 620 S.E.2d 99 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005).published
    Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 179, 180 , 255 S.E.2d 449, 450 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Walter Joseph BOGART, Appellant,
v.
FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Coleman O. Glaze, Individually and as Agent, Servant, Employee and Officer of First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Respondents
20967.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 23, 1979.
Published opinion
255 S.E.2d 449
1979 S.C. LEXIS 373
William L. Runyon, Jr., Charleston, for appellant., Morris D. Rosen and Marvin I. Oberman, of Rosen, Oberman & Rosen, Charleston, for respondent First Citizens Bank ■& Trust Company.
Ness, Lewis, Littlejohn, Rhodes, Gregory, JJ-.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Ness, Justice:

Appellant Bogart brought this action for fraud and negligence against the respondent bank and one of its employees. This appeal is from an order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents on three causes of action. We affirm.

Appellant’s single exception states: “The Honorable Court of Common Pleas erred in ordering Summary Judgment as to Causes of Action One, Four and[*180] Five.” This is clearly in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, which requires that each exception must contain a concise' statement of one proposition of law or fact. Solley v. Weaver, 247 S. C. 129, 146 S. E. (2d) 164 (1966); Larry’s Wheel and Rim, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina, S. C., 246 S. E. (2d) 860 (1978).

When an exception fails to assign a specification of error sufficient to comply with Rule 4, § 6, this Court has nothing to review. Odom v. The County of Florence, 258 S. C. 480, 189 S. E. (2d) 293 (1972). Nevertheless, we have considered the merits of this case and have concluded summary judgment was properly granted. Watts v. Monarch Builders, Inc., et al., S. C., 252 S. E. (2d) 889 (1979).

Affirmed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ-, concur.