Armstrong v. Freisleben

• Decision Date: 05 March 1888
• Citation: 5 S.E. 479,28 S.C. 605
• Parties: ARMSTRONG et al. v. FREISLEBEN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E. 479

28 S.C. 605

ARMSTRONG et al. v. FREISLEBEN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 5, 1888

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Spartanburg county; ALDRICH, Judge.

J. S. R. Thomson and Carlisle & Hydrick, for appellant.

Duncan & Sanders, for respondents.

MCIVER, J.

This case is so nearly identical, in the facts and principles involved, with that of Hecht v. Freisleben, ante, 475 in which the opinion has just been filed, as to render it unnecessary to do anything more than refer to that opinion for the reasons of our conclusion in this case. The only difference between the two cases, except as to amounts and names of plaintiffs, is that in the present case the verification appended to the copy of the complaint served on the defendant was in somewhat different phraseology from that used in the verification appended to the original complaint; the difference being that in the copy the words are: "That the source of his information and belief are the possession of a verified statement of the account sued upon," etc., as in the previous case, while in the original the words are: "That the sources of his knowledge and information, are the possession of a verified statement of the account sued upon," etc., as in the case just decided. As it is quite manifest that this difference in phraseology cannot affect the principles upon which the other case was decided, we need not consider what would otherwise be the effect of such variance between the original and the copy.

The judgment of this court is that the ruling of the circuit judge that the complaint was duly verified be reversed, and that the case be remanded to the circuit court for trial.

SIMPSON, C.J., concurs.

MCGOWAN, J.

I dissent. See opinion in the case of Hecht v. Freisleben, ante, 475.