Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tomlinson v. Sentry Engineering & Construction, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided November 20, 1985No. 84-2294Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurnaghan, Circuit Judge

In most respects insofar as the law is concerned, I find myself at one with my panel colleagues. I concur in the conclusion that recovery of attorney’s fees against Sentry Engineering and Construction, Inc. under the general law of South Carolina is not permitted.

As for the claim against the surety, Western Casualty and Surety Company, I fully accept the rule announced in Roberts v. Lawrence, 243 S.C. 158, 160, 133 S.E.2d 74, 75 (1963):

It is settled that there is no liability for attorney’s fees in actions of this kind in the absence of a statute or contract provision creating such liability.

*920A…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Winn v. Aleda Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1984
  2. Cannon v. BreschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Pennsylvania Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Ass'n v. Ezra Martin Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Standard Oil Co. v. Powell Paving & Contracting Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  5. Person v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1979

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API