Opinion
17257
February 5, 1957.
Messrs. Willcox, Hardee, Houck Palmer, of Florence, and Herbert Britt, of Dillon, for Appellant, cite: As to there being no negligent spreading of the fire that caused the damage, nor was same started by Appellant or its agents: 42 A.L.R. 792; 22 Am. Jur. 602, Sec. 12; 111 A.L.R. 1142; 18 A.L.R.2d 1087; 132 N.C. 75, 43 S.E. 548; 142 Tenn. 280; 89 S.E.2d 221. As to the lower court erring in holding that the complaint charged appellant with negligence in the origin of the fire. 22 Am. Jur. 601, Sec. 9; 61 W. Va. 571. 56 S.E. 893; 127 Ga. 550. 56 S.E. 638; 42 A.L.R. 792; 18 A.L.R.2d 1087.
Messrs. James R.C. Calhoun and J. Trus Hayes, Jr., of Dillon, for Respondent, cite: As to lower court's refusal to strike certain allegations of negligence and recklessness from the complaint as being irrelevant and redundant being not appealable: 194 S.C. 482, 10 S.E.2d 8; 87 S.C. 254, 69 S.E. 292; 176 S.C. 490, 180 S.E. 555; 208 S.C. 278, 38 S.E.2d 11; 216 S.C. 500, 59 S.E.2d 132. As to the complaint stating a cause of action entitling plaintiff to relief: 42 A.L.R. 814, 111 A.L.R. 1148, 18 A.L.R.2d 1093; 22 Am. Jur. 597, Sec. 11.
February 5, 1957.
This appeal comes from the Court of Common Pleas for Dillon County from an order of the Honorable J. Woodrow Lewis refusing to strike certain allegations of the complaint upon the ground that said allegations were irrelevant and redundant.
Respondent in this case seeks to recover damages allegedly sustained when a fire which destroyed appellant's warehouse and cotton stored therein spread to the adjoining premises and destroyed respondent's tools of trade, working materials and other personal property.
An order refusing to strike allegations in the pleadings as irrelevant and redundant is not appealable. Harbert v. Atlanta C.A.L. Ry., 74 S.C. 13, 53 S.E. 1001; Strait v. British American Mortgage Co., 77 S.C. 367, 57 S.E. 1100; Citizens' Marine Bank v. Witcover, 77 S.C. 441, 58 S.E. 146; Cooper v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 78 S.C. 562, 59 S.E. 704; McCandless v. Mobley, 81 S.C. 303, 62 S.E. 260; Woodward v. Woodward, 87 S.C. 247, 69 S.E. 232.
Upon trial, however, appellant will not by the order appealed from or this opinion be precluded or in any wise prejudiced in its efforts to exclude such testimony as may be offered in support of the allegations sought to be stricken from the complaint. Appeal dismissed.
STUKES, C.J., and OXNER and MOSS, JJ., concur.
LEGGE, J., not participating.