Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. McElmurray
| Decision Date | 07 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 17623,17623 |
| Citation | 236 S.C. 141,113 S.E.2d 756 |
| Parties | FRUEHAUF TRAILER COMPANY, Respondent, v. Richard P. McELMURRAY, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Ryan L. Scott, Columbia, for appellant.
Turner, Padget & Graham, Columbia, for respondent.
This appeal comes from the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County wherein the plaintiff sought to foreclose a conditional sales contract covering a produce trailer purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff. The sole exception, as stated by the defendant (Appellant), is that:
'The Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's Answer as sham, frivolous, and irrelevant and awarding plaintiff judgment on the pleadings; the assigned error being the Court granted plaintiff's motion made upon that ground.'
The defendant by way of answer contends that the plaintiff canceled the insurance on the trailer without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, received the refund thereon rightfully due the defendant and accepted insurance money from the defendant, and failed to reinsure the trailer prior to its destruction by collision as it was authorized to do under the conditional sales contract, all of which amounted to a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure on the conditional sales contract.
Plaintiff contends that the matters involving the insurance coverage on the trailer are not relevant to the issue of plaintiff's right to recover the balance of the purchase money due and owing to plaintiff by the defendant. Plaintiff further contends that the provisions of the conditional sales contract expressly negate any obligation on plaintiff's part to keep the trailer insured, and that destruction of the trailer was not a release of the defendant from his contract obligation.
The plaintiff moved to strike the answer as sham, frivolous and irrelevant and to have judgment on the pleadings. This motion was heard before the Honorable G. Duncan Bellinger and was granted in his Order dated July 16, 1959.
The exception presented in this appeal is entirely too general, vague and indefinite to be considered by this Court and does not comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6, which states:
* * *'
In the case of Brady v. Brady, 222 S.C. 242, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dingle
...such form that it may be properly reviewed. Hewitt v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 235 S.C. 201, 110 S.E. (2d) 852; Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. McElmurray, 236 S.C. 141, 113 S.E. (2d) 756. While an appropriate issue has not been properly preserved, we have, however, considered the argument of counsel......
-
Williams v. Regula
...it in such form that it may be properly reviewed. Hewitt v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 235 S.C. 201, 110 S.E.2d 852; Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. McElmurray, 236 S.C. 141, 113 S.E.2d 756.' An exception which requires this Court to review all of the evidence and retry the whole case is too general to......
-
Winter v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...upon which the motion referred to was based. Hewitt v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 235 S.C. 201, 110 S.E.2d 852, and Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. McElmurray, 236 S.C. 141, 113 S.E.2d 756. It is readily apparent that the exception of the appellant hereinabove quoted is deficient and does not comply wi......
- Johnson v. Thomason