Union Guano Co. v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 31 December 1924
• Docket Number: 11639.
• Citation: 126 S.E. 133,130 S.C. 404
• Parties: UNION GUANO CO. v. GARRISON ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

126 S.E. 133

130 S.C. 404

UNION GUANO CO. v. GARRISON ET AL.

No. 11639.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 31, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Pickens County; E. C Dennis, Judge.

Action by the Union Guano Company against Henry W. Garrison and another. From order striking out defendants' answer as sham and frivolous, and rendering judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Martin Blythe, Craig & Keith, of Pickens, for appellants.

Nettles & Oxner, of Greenville, for respondent.

COTHRAN J.

Action upon a promissory note executed by the defendants as makers and payable to the plaintiff. The appeal is from an order of the circuit judge, striking out the answer of the defendants as sham and frivolous, and rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The complaint alleges the corporate existence of the plaintiff, the residence of the defendants, the execution and delivery of the note (a copy of which is set forth in the complaint), presentment for payment, failure to pay, the ownership of the note, and the amount due.

The answer admits the corporate existence of the plaintiff, the residence of the defendants, the execution by them of some note, but alleges that they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not the note described in the complaint is the note signed, and demands proof thereof, and that they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not the plaintiff is the owner thereof.

At the hearing of the motion to strike out, in open court, after reading the pleadings, motion papers, inspecting the original note sued upon and hearing argument, his honor, Judge Dennis, granted the motion and rendered judgment.

Under the case of Guaranty Co. v. Kibler, 105 S.C. 513, 90 S.E. 159, it is clear that the answer did not put in issue the execution and delivery of the note sued upon.

Paragraph 3 of the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the legal owner and holder of the note sued upon. Paragraph 2 of the answer alleges that the defendants have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not the plaintiff is the lawful owner and holder thereof.

In an action by the payee of a note against the maker, it is presumed that the payee is the legal owner and holder. The allegation of ownership is superfluous, and the denial of it without the allegation of facts upon which the denial might be supported is nothing more than the...