Scott v. Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 17043
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 88 S.E.2d 623,227 S.C. 535 |
| Docket Number | No. 17043,17043 |
| Parties | Robert SCOTT, Respondent, v. INDEPENDENT LIFE and ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1955 |
Page 623
v.
INDEPENDENT LIFE and ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Page 624
[227 S.C. 536] Nash & Wilson, Sumter, for appellant.
Roger W. Kirven, Florence, for respondent.
OXNER, Justice.
This is an action in tort. Defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground 'that nocause of action is alleged against the defendant, in that there are no allegations in the complaint that any actionable wrong has been done plaintiff by the defendant.' The Court below overruled the demurrer.
[227 S.C. 537] The sole exception on this appeal is as follows: 'His Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in holding that a cause of action has been stated inthe complaint.'
The foregoing exception is entirely too general, vague, and indefinite to be considered. Rule 4, Section 6 of this Court; Dendy v. Waite, 36 S.C. 569, 15 S.E. 712; Swygert v. Wingard, 48 S.C. 321, 26 S.E. 653; Brady v. Brady, 222 S.C. 242, 72 S.E.2d 193, 194. The last mentioned case involved an appeal from a judgment sustaining an order demurrer. The only exception was couched in the following language: "That his Honor, the trial judge, erred in sustaining the oral demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action, the error being that the complaint does state a cause of action." The Court held that it was too indefinite and did not comply with Rule 4, Section 6.
In the Brady case we waived the breach of the rule and considered the exception because it was found to embrace a meritorious assignment of error. In some instances, however, we have absolutely refused to consider exceptions framed in violation of the rule. Hydrick v. Fairey, 132 S.C. 335, 128 S.E. 358; Wilson v. Clary, 212 S.C. 250, 47 S.E.2d 618; Gordon v. Rothberg, 213 S.C. 492, 50 S.E.2d 202.
In the instant case we have, purely ex gratia, considered the complaint. We are not convinced that it states no cause of action. It is intimated in appellant's brief that some of the allegations are incredible, but the facts can only be determined on a trial of the case.
Appeal dismissed.
BAKER, C. J., and STUKES, TAYLOR and LEGGE, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hewitt v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 17573
...error alleged was 'in refusing to grant plaintiff's motion for a new trial.' The case of Scott v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 227 S.C. 535, 88 S.E.2d 623, 624, was an action in tort. The defendant demurred to the complaint and such was overruled. Upon appeal to this Court, it was ......
-
Mallinger v. New York Life Ins. Co., 17042
...v. Prudential Insurance Co., 206 S.C. 320, 34 S.E.2d 57. Under the evidence, we think this was a question for the jury. Assuming,[227 S.C. 535] however, that he cannot do so, we cannot say as a matter of law that his income as a policeman was not reasonably comparable to that which he would......
-
Shell v. Brown, 18147
...this Court and will not be considered as it is entirely too general, vague and indefinite. Scott v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 227 S.C. 535, 88 S.E.2d For the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed; and it is so ordered. Appeal dismissed. MOSS, L......
-
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 17621
...the trial judge committed error in submitting the three questions in the order stated. Cf. Scott v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 227 S.C. 535, 88 S.E.2d 623; Furtick v. Duncan, 229 S.C. 126, 92 S.E.2d 132. We note also that at the close of his charge the trial judge excused the jur......