Washington v. Gantt

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Carmell Washington,       
Appellant,

v.

Leon A. Gantt,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-284

Submitted February 20, 2003 – Filed
April 24, 2003   

AFFIRMED

Carmell Washington, pro se, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Leon Gantt, pro se, of Columbia; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

INTRODUCTION

Carmell Washington brought this claim
and delivery action in the magistrate court to recover personal property.  He
alleged Leon Gantt wrongfully withheld Washington’s truck.  Gantt counterclaimed
for payment of the truck repairs.  The magistrate tried the action without a
jury.  He dismissed Washington’s claim, finding in favor of Gantt.  Washington
appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the magistrate court.

ISSUE ON APPEAL

Whether the circuit court erred in affirming
the judgment of the magistrate court that the parties entered into a binding
contract concerning the repair of Washington’s vehicle.

FACTS

On July 1, 2001, Washington took his 1984
Nissan truck to Gantt’s Garage and signed a work order authorizing its repair. 
Washington later sent Gantt a letter informing Gantt that he would not “have
the money right away to fix [his] truck” and that he did not “need his truck
as much.” 

Gantt never quoted Washington a figure
for the repair of the truck because he did not know the extent of the problem. 
Gantt completed the repair of the truck on or about July 30, 2001, and billed
Washington $720.18.  Washington claimed Gantt quoted one price for the repair
of the vehicle but charged another. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As a general rule, the court of appeals
“will presume that the affirmance by the circuit court of a magistrate’s judgment
was made upon the merits where the testimony is sufficient to sustain the magistrate’s
judgment, and where there are no facts that show the affirmance was influenced
by error.”  Jean Hoefer Toal, et al., Appellate Practice In South Carolina,
at 30 (S.C. Bar 1999).

DISCUSSION AND HOLDING

The trial court expressly found the evidence
sufficient to support the findings of the magistrate.  The magistrate found
that Washington admitted taking the truck to Gantt and telling him to fix it. 
The magistrate also found that Gantt repaired the vehicle, but that Washington
only wanted to pay half the costs. 

The evidence recited above supports the
magistrate’s findings.

AFFIRMED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., and CURETON and GOOLSBY,
JJ., concur.

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court
in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.