Weatiierby v. Covengton
Decision Date | 23 October 1897 |
Citation | 51 S.C. 55,28 S.E. 1 |
Parties | WEATIIERBY v. COVENGTON et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal—General Exceptions. An exception on the ground that the trial judge "erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's complaint, thereby holding that it stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants, " is too general to require the consideration of the supreme court.
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Marion county; R. C. Watts, Judge.
Action by Caroline Weatherby against T. C. Covengton and Robert Webster. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
W. J. Montgomery, for appellants.
Johnson & Johnson, for respondent.
The complaint in this case was for the recovery of the possession of personal property, and damages for unlawful taking and detention thereof. A demurrer was interposed, on the ground that the complaint' did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was overruled by the circuit court. Appellants except thereto, as follows: "Because it is respectfully submitted that his honor, Judge Watts, erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's complaint, thereby holding that it stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants." Respondent insists that this exception cannot be considered, because too general. We so hold. State v. Turner, 18 S. C. 103; McDaniel v. Stokes, 19 S. C. 61; Cureton v. Stokes, 20 S. C. 583; Talbott v. Padgett, 30 S. C. 167, 8 S. E. 845; Sims v. Jones, 43 S. C. 99, 20 S. E. 905; Marshall v. Creel, 44 S. C. 485, 22 S. E. 597, and many other cases. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
McIVER, C. J. I concur in the conclusion that the exception upon which this appeal is based is too general to require the consideration of this court. Rule V of this court declares that "an exception for the purpose of an appeal must contain a statement of the proposition of law or fact which it is desired to review." In Talbott v. Padgett, 30 S. C, at page 170, 8 S. E., at page 846, this court used the following language, which is quoted with approval in Sims v. Jones, 43 S. C. 99, 20 S. E. 905: Again, in Marshall v. Creel, 44 S. C, at page 485, 22 S. E., at page 597, this court, after stating the first three exceptions, used this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial