Fennell v. Glamor Shops, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Fennell v. Glamor Shops, Inc.

71 S.E.2d 499, 222 S.C. 21, 1952 S.C. LEXIS 1

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 26, 1952

Docket16641

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 S.E.2d 499 (Fennell v. Glamor Shops, Inc.) 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

Fennell v. Glamor Shops, Inc., 71 S.E.2d 499, 222 S.C. 21, 1952 S.C. LEXIS 1 (S.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Baker, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, Parenthetically, we observe that the demurrer is also defective in that it does not specify wherein the complaint fails to state a cause of action, but no issue is made thereabout.

For a proper understanding of the issue before the Court, let paragraphs two through five of the complaint be reported herewith.

[24]*24From a mere casual reading of the complaint, it is so obvious under the applicable principles of law prevailing in this State, that the complaint does not state a cause of action, we feel that it is unnecessary to discuss the issue. See the citations: 41 Amer. Jur., Pleading, Section 78; Bradford v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 141 S. C. 453, 140 S. E. 105; Perry v. Carolina Theater, 180 S. C. 130, 185 S. E. 184; Bolen v. Strange, 192 S. C. 284, 6 S. E. (2d) 466; Bagwell v. McLellan Stores Co., 216 S. C. 207, 57 S. E. (2d) 257; Mullinax v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, S. C., 70 S. E. (2d) 911.

In sustaining the demurrer, it is not our intention to preclude the plaintiff respondent from moving in the court below for leave to amend her complaint if she be so advised.

Reversed and remanded.

Eishburne, Stuices, Taylor and Oxner, JJ., concur.

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

Baker, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, Parenthetically, we observe that the demurrer is also defective in that it does not specify wherein the complaint fails to state a cause of action, but no issue is made thereabout.

For a proper understanding of the issue before the Court, let paragraphs two through five of the complaint be reported herewith.

[24]*24From a mere casual reading of the complaint, it is so obvious under the applicable principles of law prevailing in this State, that the complaint does not state a cause of action, we feel that it is unnecessary to discuss the issue. See the citations: 41 Amer. Jur., Pleading, Section 78; Bradford v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 141 S. C. 453, 140 S. E. 105; Perry v. Carolina Theater, 180 S. C. 130, 185 S. E. 184; Bolen v. Strange, 192 S. C. 284, 6 S. E. (2d) 466; Bagwell v. McLellan Stores Co., 216 S. C. 207, 57 S. E. (2d) 257; Mullinax v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, S. C., 70 S. E. (2d) 911.

In sustaining the demurrer, it is not our intention to preclude the plaintiff respondent from moving in the court below for leave to amend her complaint if she be so advised.

Reversed and remanded.

Eishburne, Stuices, Taylor and Oxner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 499, 222 S.C. 21, 1952 S.C. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-glamor-shops-inc-sc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack