Ellett Brothers, Inc. v. Manos

239 S.E.2d 75, 269 S.C. 581, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 343
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 16, 1977
Docket20542
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 75 (Ellett Brothers, Inc. v. Manos) 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
Ellett Brothers, Inc. v. Manos, 239 S.E.2d 75, 269 S.C. 581, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 343 (S.C. 1977).

Opinion

Gregory, Justice:

This appeal is from the order of the lower court sustaining respondent’s demurrer to appellant’s complaint on the ground the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Angelo B. Manos individually. We reverse.

On appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer, this Court’s review is limited to the allegations stated in the complaint, which are assumed to be true. Herndon v. Wright, 257 S. C. 98, 184 S. E. (2d) 444 (1971). This excludes from consideration respondent’s right to relief from liability on grounds which are in the nature of an affirmative defense. Lanham v. Jennings, 122 S. C. 461, 113 S. E. 791 (1922). A demurrer to a complaint cannot be sustained in facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action are stated in or can be fairly gathered from the complaint. Meadors v. South Carolina Medical Association, 266 S. C. 391, 223 S. E. (2d) 600 (1976), Baldwin v. Sanders, 266 S. C. 394, 223 S. E. (2d) 602 (1976).

Ellett Brothers, Inc., brought this action against Angelo B. Manos formerly doing business as Art’s Gun Shop doing business as Leseo. The complaint alleges that plaintiff is a corporation; that defendant is a resident of Richland County; that plaintiff sold and delivered certain goods to defendant; and that defendant has not paid for a portion of those goods. An itemized statement of account is attached to the complaint.

The allegations in this complaint clearly state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the named defendant. Thus, the lower court was in error in sustaining respondent’s demurrer.

Reversed.

■ Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Ness and Rhodes, JJ,. concur.

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

Related

Moultis v. Degen
301 S.E.2d 554 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1983)
Glass v. Glass
281 S.E.2d 221 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)
Stalheim v. Doskocil
257 S.E.2d 738 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1979)
Kinsey Construction Co. v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health
249 S.E.2d 900 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
Knowles v. Standard Savings & Loan Ass'n
246 S.E.2d 879 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
Bobo Brothers, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission
244 S.E.2d 519 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 S.E.2d 75, 269 S.C. 581, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellett-brothers-inc-v-manos-sc-1977.