Bell v. Jackson

78 S.E. 679, 93 S.C. 556, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 55
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided March 14, 1913·No. 8444·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The -opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

The order involves the merits, and is, therefore, appealable. Pickett v. Fidelity Co., 52 S. C. 584, 30 S. E. 614.

Section 192 of the Code of Procedure, 1912, -says, that “the complaint shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action, without unnecessary repetition.” The- only fault that can be found with the plaintiff’s complaint is that it lacks conciseness, and contains too much repetition. He -stated the facts constituting his cause of action. The order of the Circuit Court requires him to add allegations of law, to- wit, whether his action is legal or equitable; that is, whether it is an action o-n the note set out in the complaint, or an action on the note'and equitable mortgage alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint, and for the foreclosure thereof; also-, the manner in which said written instrument is claimed to give plaintiff a lien. These are questions for the Court. The order also- requires him to set forth in the complaint at least a part of the evidence upon which he relies to- p-ro-ve the- facts alleged. Evidentiary matter ought not to- be set -out in- the pleadings. They should contain only allegations of fact — naked facts, accompanied by as few modifying adjectives as the exigencies of the case will permit.

Defendant knows, or ought to- know, what instruments he gave plaintiff. If he has forgotten their tenns, the- -Code of Procedure provides a method whereby he may obtain' an inspection and copy of them.

Order reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell v. Jackson, 78 S.E. 679, 93 S.C. 556, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 55 (S.C. 1913).

78 S.E. 679 (Bell v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walker v. Preacher
194 S.E. 868 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1938)
Beard v. Paul Motor Company, Inc.
164 S.E. 837 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1932)
Catawba Fertilizer Co. v. Gibson
152 S.E. 729 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
Wichman v. Scarpa
85 S.E. 1061 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1915)