From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 28, 1913
95 S.C. 35 (S.C. 1913)

Opinion

8566

May 28, 1913.

Before SPAIN, J., Barnwell, March, 1913. Affirmed.

Action by Brand Shoe Company against Women's Wear Shop. Plaintiff appeals.

Mr. Thos. M. Boulware, for appellant, cites: 14 Barb. 553; 18 How. Pr. 240; 2 Abb. Forms 17.

Mr. James M. Patterson, contra.


May 28, 1913. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an action on account for goods, which the complaint alleges were sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the appeal is from an order refusing to strike out the answer as frivolous.

The answer is as follows:

"The defendant, Women's Wear Shop, answering the complaint herein, and for a first defense thereto, alleges that it denies every allegation in said complaint contained and therein stated."

His Honor, the Circuit Judge, refused the motion to strike out the answer as frivolous, on the ground that it is a general denial.

In the first place, an order refusing to strike out an answer on the ground of frivolousness is not appealable. Bank v. Witcover, 77 S.C. 441; Harbert v. Atlanta etc. Ry., 74 S.C. 13.

But waiving such objection the appeal can not be sustained. The defendant concedes that the answer would have been sufficient if the defendant had denied the allegations of the complaint, without alleging that it did so.

We do not deem it necessary to cite authorities to show that the difference in form is wholly immaterial.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 28, 1913
95 S.C. 35 (S.C. 1913)
Case details for

Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop

Case Details

Full title:BRAND SHOE CO. v. WOMEN'S WEAR SHOP

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: May 28, 1913

Citations

95 S.C. 35 (S.C. 1913)
78 S.E. 446

Citing Cases

Rhode v. Ray Waits Motors, Inc., et al

39, p. 823. As to no tortious acts being alleged: 188 S.C. 14, 198 S.E. 425. As to prayer of complaint not…

Pieper v. Shahid

Messrs. Huger, Wilbur Guerard, for appellant, cite: Code Civil Proc., sections 160, 162, 164 and 165; 6 Munf,…