Lawson v. Mills

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lawson v. Mills

191 S.E.2d 637, 259 S.C. 308, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 244

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 19, 1972

Docket19490

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 S.E.2d 637 (Lawson v. Mills) 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

Lawson v. Mills, 191 S.E.2d 637, 259 S.C. 308, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 244 (S.C. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:

In this action plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover damages for alleged slander or defamation of his reputation in his trade. The defendant-respondent moved to require the com-paint to, be made more definite and certain in certain partic[309]*309ulars, and also, to strike certain matter from the complaint. Defendant also demurred to the complaint on the ground that such did not state a cause of action for slander in that “offensive, abusive, insulting or blasphemous words do not constitute slander per se,” and that the complaint had failed to allege any special damages to the plaintiff. The judge of the County Court sustained the demurrer but allowed plaintiff to plead over, thus rendering it unnecessary to pass upon defendant’s motions.

Appellant’s exceptions and brief were obviously prepared with virtually no regard fo,r the rules of this Court. No one of his exceptions clearly or fully complies with Supreme Court Rule 4, sec. 6. His brief does not fully comply with Supreme Court Rule 8, Sec. 2, and totally disregards Rule 8, Sec. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for failure to comply with the rules of this Court.

For whatever comfort it may be to appellant or his counsel, even if non-compliance with the rules be waived, no prejudicial error is apparent from a reading of the record and briefs.

Appeal dismissed.

Moss C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam:

In this action plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover damages for alleged slander or defamation of his reputation in his trade. The defendant-respondent moved to require the com-paint to, be made more definite and certain in certain partic[309]*309ulars, and also, to strike certain matter from the complaint. Defendant also demurred to the complaint on the ground that such did not state a cause of action for slander in that “offensive, abusive, insulting or blasphemous words do not constitute slander per se,” and that the complaint had failed to allege any special damages to the plaintiff. The judge of the County Court sustained the demurrer but allowed plaintiff to plead over, thus rendering it unnecessary to pass upon defendant’s motions.

Appellant’s exceptions and brief were obviously prepared with virtually no regard fo,r the rules of this Court. No one of his exceptions clearly or fully complies with Supreme Court Rule 4, sec. 6. His brief does not fully comply with Supreme Court Rule 8, Sec. 2, and totally disregards Rule 8, Sec. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for failure to comply with the rules of this Court.

For whatever comfort it may be to appellant or his counsel, even if non-compliance with the rules be waived, no prejudicial error is apparent from a reading of the record and briefs.

Appeal dismissed.

Moss C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E.2d 637, 259 S.C. 308, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-mills-sc-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack