Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop

78 S.E. 446, 95 S.C. 35, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 180

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 28, 1913

Docket8566

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 446 (Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brand Shoe Co. v. Women's Wear Shop, 78 S.E. 446, 95 S.C. 35, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 180 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

*36 Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

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.

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