Robert Robertson v. Huddle House ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
    CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
    EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Court of Appeals
    Robert William Robertson, Appellant,
    v.
    Huddle House, Inc., Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2017-000748
    Appeal From Aiken County
    M. Anderson Griffith, Master-in-Equity
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-413
    Submitted September 1, 2018 – Filed November 7, 2018
    AFFIRMED
    Bradley A. Brodie, of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn &
    Mayes, LLC, of Aiken, for Appellant.
    Paul Knapp Simons, Jr., of Hull Barrett, PC, of Aiken;
    and David Brooks Kirkley Hudson, of Augusta, GA, both
    for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 
    376 S.C. 585
    , 590, 
    658 S.E.2d 539
    , 542 (Ct. App. 2008) ("When reviewing a judgment made in a law case tried
    by a master[-in-equity] without a jury, the appellate court will not disturb the
    master[-in-equity]'s findings of fact unless the findings are found to be without
    evidence reasonably supporting them."); Middleton v. Eubank, 
    388 S.C. 8
    , 14, 
    694 S.E.2d 31
    , 34 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A declaratory judgment action is neither legal nor
    equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying issue."); 
    id.
     ("A lease
    agreement is a contract, and an action to construe a contract is an action at law.");
    
    id.
     ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give legal effect
    to the parties' intentions as determined by the contract language." (quoting McGill
    v. Moore, 
    381 S.C. 179
    , 185, 
    672 S.E.2d 571
    , 574 (2009))); 
    id.
     ("When a contract's
    language is clear and unambiguous, the language alone determines the force and
    effect of the contract."); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 
    358 S.C. 78
    , 92, 
    594 S.E.2d 485
    ,
    492 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In South Carolina, two contracts executed at different times
    relating to the same subject matter, entered into by the same parties, are to be
    construed as one contract and considered as a whole."); id. at 92, 594 S.E.2d at
    492-93 ("Moreover, where one of the contracts explains, amplifies, or limits the
    other, those provisions will be given effect between the parties so that the whole
    agreement, as actually contracted by the parties, may be effectuated."); id. at 93,
    594 S.E.2d at 493 ("This rule applies even where the parties are not the same, if the
    several instruments were known to all the parties and were delivered the same time
    to accomplish an agreed purpose.").
    AFFIRMED.1
    LOCKEMY, C.J., and THOMAS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2018-UP-413

Filed Date: 11/7/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024