From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lumber Company v. Hodges

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 21, 1915
100 S.C. 477 (S.C. 1915)

Opinion

9076

April 21, 1915.

Before MEMMINGER, J., Dillon, March, 1914. Appeal dismissed.

Action by Marion County Lumber Company against C.P. Hodges. Appeal by defendant from order refusing him leave to amend answer.

Mr. D.D. McColl, for appellant, cites: As to judicial discretion: 94 S.C. 16; 47 S.C. 498. The rights of parties grow out of transaction stated in 69 S.C. 95. Right to amendment: 95 S.C. 341; 85 S.C. 261; 80 S.C. 217.

Messrs. M.C. Woods and A.F. Woods, for respondent, cite: Opinion on former appeal in this case: 96 S.C. 140. Rules determining right to amend: 81 S.C. 579; 60 S.C. 139; 70 S.C. 550. Object of amendment: 69 S.C. 93; 89 S.C. 328; 98 S.C. 8; 94 S.C. 187. Estoppel: 82 S.C. 24; 6 Pom. Eq. Juris., sec. 687; 3 Rich. Eq. 281-300.


April 21, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an appeal from an order of Judge Memminger refusing to allow the defendant to amend his answer.

It is admitted that the motion to amend is an appeal to the discretion of his Honor. In order for this Court to sustain this appeal it must appear that there is manifest error in refusing the amendment. The complaint is not incorporated in the "case" and when the original answer denies certain allegations of the complaint by number this Court has no means of knowing what the issues are.

The only question argued by the appellant is his right to amend, and since he has not shown the right to amend, the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Lumber Company v. Hodges

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 21, 1915
100 S.C. 477 (S.C. 1915)
Case details for

Lumber Company v. Hodges

Case Details

Full title:MARION COUNTY LUMBER CO. v. HODGES

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 21, 1915

Citations

100 S.C. 477 (S.C. 1915)
85 S.E. 49

Citing Cases

Matheson v. Am. Telephone, c., Co.

Code Rems. (4th Ed.) Secs. 235, 345. Order appealable: 60 S.C. 521; 36 S.C. 559; 11 S.C. 122. Complaint…

Iron Equipment Co. v. Railway

The allowance of the amendment is within the discretion of his Honor and no abuse of discretion appears.…