First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Stuckey

Supreme Court of South Carolina

First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Stuckey

169 S.E. 843, 170 S.C. 86, 1933 S.C. LEXIS 145

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 7, 1933

Docket13647

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 169 S.E. 843 (First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Stuckey) 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

First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Stuckey, 169 S.E. 843, 170 S.C. 86, 1933 S.C. LEXIS 145 (S.C. 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Brease.

The order of his Honor, Circuit Judge Stoll, in this cause, appealed from by some of the defendants, which will be re-' ported, is entirely satisfactory to this Court.

Counsel for the appellants criticize the holdings in McRachern v. Wilson, 154 S. C., 201, 151 S. E., 472, and Brewton v. Shirley, 93 S. C., 365, 76 S. E., 988, relied upon to sustain the conclusion of the lower Court. Upon careful consideration of those cases, we are satisfied with the conclusions there announced.

If we should agree with the construction placed by appellants upon the provisions of Section 493 of the Code, as to “Amendments of Course,” that the appellants had the legal *91 right, as a matter of course, without the permission of the Court, to put in a second amended answer, the result would be to practically prevent a case in the Court of Common Pleas from ever being tried, when a defendant desired to accomplish that purpose. If a party has the right, under the terms of that section, to file more than one amended pleading, as a matter of course, he has the right to file any number of such amended pleadings. He might continue to file and file amended pleadings, and the case would never be ready for trial. We cannot conceive that the legislative authority ever intended such consequences.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices StabeEr and Bonham concur. Mr. Justice Carter disqualified.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Brease.

The order of his Honor, Circuit Judge Stoll, in this cause, appealed from by some of the defendants, which will be re-' ported, is entirely satisfactory to this Court.

Counsel for the appellants criticize the holdings in McRachern v. Wilson, 154 S. C., 201, 151 S. E., 472, and Brewton v. Shirley, 93 S. C., 365, 76 S. E., 988, relied upon to sustain the conclusion of the lower Court. Upon careful consideration of those cases, we are satisfied with the conclusions there announced.

If we should agree with the construction placed by appellants upon the provisions of Section 493 of the Code, as to “Amendments of Course,” that the appellants had the legal *91 right, as a matter of course, without the permission of the Court, to put in a second amended answer, the result would be to practically prevent a case in the Court of Common Pleas from ever being tried, when a defendant desired to accomplish that purpose. If a party has the right, under the terms of that section, to file more than one amended pleading, as a matter of course, he has the right to file any number of such amended pleadings. He might continue to file and file amended pleadings, and the case would never be ready for trial. We cannot conceive that the legislative authority ever intended such consequences.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices StabeEr and Bonham concur. Mr. Justice Carter disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 843, 170 S.C. 86, 1933 S.C. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-carolinas-joint-stock-land-bank-v-stuckey-sc-1933.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack