Am. Button-hole v. Hill
| Decision Date | 12 July 1887 |
| Citation | 27 S.C. 164,3 S.E. 82 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | American Button-Hole, Overseaming & Sewing Machine Co. v. Hill. |
An answer will not be declared frivolous unless the objection extends to and embraces the whole pleading, so that nothing is left that presents an issue for trial.
In an action on certain promissory notes alleged to have been made to plaintiff corporation, copies of which were annexed to the complaint, the answer denied any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the incorporation of plaintiff; admitted the execution of certain notes to plaintiff, but averred defendant's ignorance of the date, amount, or terms of them; admitted that no part of them had been paid; and finally denied each and every allegation of the complaint not before admitted or denied. Upon the question as to whether the answer should be overruled as frivolous, held, that the plaintiffs corporate existence was not put in issue by the denial in reference thereto, but that the final paragraph of the answer, in connection with the preceding paragraphs, amounted to a denial of the execution of the identical notes sued on, and made an issue for the jury upon that point, and that therefore the answer was not frivolous.
The plaintiff, claiming to be a body corporate under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, sued the defendant on four notes, (each for $97.50,) alleging that they were executed by him, and payable to the order of "American Button-Hole, Overseaming & Sewing Machine Company." Copies of the notes were set out in the complaint.
The defendant answered as follows: "(1) That he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the incorporation of said American Button-Hole, Overseaming & Sewing Machine Company; (2) that the defendant admits that he executed and delivered certain notes, payable to the alleged American Button-Hole, Overseaming & Sewing Machine Company, but does not know the date, amount, or terms of said notes; (3) that defendant admits that he has paid no part of these notes; (4) that defendant denies each and every allegation of said complaint not hereinbefore admitted or denied."
The plaintiff, after due notice, moved an order overruling the answer as frivolous, and for judgment thereon. Judge Aldrich granted the motion, and gave the plaintiffs judgment on the notes. From this order the defendant appeals, alleging error, for the reason that the material averments of the complaint were denied in the answer. Section 178, Code, provides as follows: "The answer of the defendant must contain: (1) a general or special denial of each material allegation of the complaint controverted by the defendant, or of any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief, " etc.; "(2) a statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counter-claim, " etc. Section 268 declares that, "if a demurrer, answer, or reply be frivolous, the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Enoree v. Yarborough
...or information sumcient to form a belief as to the corporate capacity of the plaintiff does not put that fact in issue. American Co. v. Hill, 27 S.C. 165, 3 S.E. 82; Ober v. Blalock, 40 S.C. 31, 18 S.E. Seigler v. R. Co., 85 S.C. 345, 67 S.E. 296; Gin Co. v. Counts, 98 S.C. 136, 82 S.E. 391......
-
Badham v. Brabham
...presents no issues which can be determined in this action, and is therefore frivolous. Tharin v. Seabrook, 6 S. C. 118; Machine Co. v. Hill, 3 S. E. 82, 27 S. C. 164; Grayson v. Harris, 37 S. C. 607, 16 S. E. 154. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the answer of the defendant herein ......
-
Peacock, Hunt & West Co. v. Williams
...or that it is manifestly insufficient (Bouv. Law Dict.), nor that it fails to deny the allegations of the complaint (American Co. v. Hill, 27 S.C. 164, 3 S.E. 82), that upon mere inspection, without examination or research, it is utterly invalid (Grayson v. Harris, supra; Boyleston v. Crews......
-
Mickle v. Congaree Const. Co
...admits plaintiff's right to sue In his representative capacity, " etc. Marble Co. v. Black (Tenn.) 14 S. W. 479; Button Hole, etc., Co. v. Hill, 27 S. C. 165, 3 S. E. 82. "No doubt it is necessary that the character in which plaintiff sues should appear In the complaint, but it seems, so th......