Woodward v. Woodward

• Decision Date: 11 November 1910
• Citation: 69 S.E. 232,87 S.C. 247
• Parties: WOODWARD v. WOODWARD et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 232

87 S.C. 247

WOODWARD v. WOODWARD et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 11, 1910

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lee County; T. S. Sease Judge.

Action by Emma B. Woodward against Hosea W. Woodward and Henry Woodward. From an order overruling a motion to strike out parts of the complaint, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.

McLeod & Dennis and M. L. Smith, for appellants. McLauchlin & Tatum for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

This is an action for dower. The complaint alleges "that on the -- day of October or December, 1888," the plaintiff and John Frierson Woodward were married, and that, during her coverture with him, he "was seised and possessed in fee of the following tracts of land." Thereafter 13 tracts are particularly described in the complaint, but not in numerical or successive order. After the description of 11 tracts, each under a separate subdivision, the fifth paragraph of the complaint follows, in which it is stated which of the defendants has possession of each of the tracts previously described. Then follow paragraphs 6 and 7, which describe two more tracts. The eighth and last paragraph is as follows: "That the plaintiff is entitled to her dower in all of the tracts of land above described, and the same is withheld from her by these defendants." The defendants moved for an order to strike out certain allegations of the complaint, as irrelevant and redundant, and, failing in that to require plaintiff to make her complaint more definite and certain by alleging: (1) The exact date of her marriage. (2) By what right she claims dower in the tracts described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint. (3) Which of the defendants is in possession of said tracts.

The plaintiff need not have alleged, even generally, the date of her marriage. The allegation that her deceased husband was seised of the land during her coverture with him was sufficient. Her right to dower in the tracts described in paragraphs 6 and 7 by virtue of the seisin thereof by her husband during coverture is alleged with sufficient certainty. For that reason she alleges that she is entitled to dower "in the following tracts," and those described in paragraphs 6 and 7 are amongst those which follow. When the facts are exclusively or peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties, greater precision and detail of allegation may be required of him. On the other hand, a more general allegation will be...