Marion v. City Council

47 S.E. 140, 68 S.C. 257, 1904 S.C. LEXIS 31
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 23, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 S.E. 140 (Marion v. City Council) 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
Marion v. City Council, 47 S.E. 140, 68 S.C. 257, 1904 S.C. LEXIS 31 (S.C. 1904).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

*258 Mr. Justice Gary.

The question presented by the exceptions in this case is whether a complaint is subject to a demurrer, on the ground it appears upon the face of the complaint that several causes of action have been improperly únited, when the allegations are set forth, in form, as a single cause of action.

This question is conclusively settled by the case of Cartin v. R. R., 43 S. C., 221, 20 S. E, 979, in which the Court uses this language: “If two- causes of action were set forth in the complaint, without being separately stated, the defendant, it is true, had the right to make a motion, that the complaint be made more definite and certain; or if allegations were made which were unnecessary to sustain the cause of action stated in the complaint, to1 make a motion to strike out such allegations as irrelevant and as surplusage. Pom. R. & R. R., secs. 447, 451. If the defendant waived said objections by failing to make such motions, then the plaintiff had the right to- the relief, to which all the allegations showed he was entitled.”

The foregoing case shows that a demurrer was not the appellant’s proper remedy.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

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

Related

Strickland v. Anderson
196 S.E. 184 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1938)
Boling v. Clinton Cotton Mills
161 S.E. 195 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Southern Railway Co. v. Swift & Co.
155 S.E. 429 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
Matheson v. American Telephone, &C., Co.
118 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Ryder v. Jefferson Hotel Company
113 S.E. 474 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Duncan v. E. Jones Co.
64 S.E. 749 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 S.E. 140, 68 S.C. 257, 1904 S.C. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marion-v-city-council-sc-1904.