Filed: Feb. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2016
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 4(d)(1), SCRCP (allowing service of process upon an individual "by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally . . . or by delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process"); Delta Appa
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 4(d)(1), SCRCP (allowing service of process upon an individual "by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally . . . or by delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process"); Delta Appar..
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 4(d)(1), SCRCP (allowing service of process upon an individual "by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally . . . or by delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process"); Delta Apparel, Inc. v. Farina, 406 S.C. 257, 267, 750 S.E.2d 615, 620 (Ct. App. 2013) (noting South Carolina courts have "never required exacting compliance with the rules to effect service of process" (quoting Roche v. Young Bros. of Florence, 318 S.C. 207, 209-10, 456 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1995))); id. ("Rather, [courts] inquire whether the plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the rules such that the court has personal jurisdiction of the defendant and the defendant has notice of the proceedings." (quoting Roche, 318 S.C. at 210, 456 S.E.2d at 899)); Roberson v. S. Fin. of S.C., Inc., 365 S.C. 6, 10, 615 S.E.2d 112, 115 (2005) ("An agent's authority is composed of his or her actual authority, whether express or implied, together with the apparent authority which the principal by his or her conduct is precluded from denying.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
