Grayson v. Harris
Supreme Court of South Carolina
The court said : “Exception 1 makes the point that there was error in holding that the answer was frivolous. . It is certainly creditable to the bar that this question has so rarely arisen in this State. The motion in this case was, under section 268 of the Code, for judgment on the answer as frivolous. In such case the rule seems to be settled that, to be adjudged frivolous, the whole answer must be clearly so.
Read the full summary
The court said : “Exception 1 makes the point that there was error in holding that the answer was frivolous. . It is certainly creditable to the bar that this question has so rarely arisen in this State. The motion in this case was, under section 268 of the Code, for judgment on the answer as frivolous. In such case the rule seems to be settled that, to be adjudged frivolous, the whole answer must be clearly so. If argument is necessary to establish that character, the court will not dispose of it in this summary way. See Boylston v. Crews, 2 S. C., 424; Tharin v. Seabrook, 6 S. C., 118, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McGowan,
*606In this case, the complaint was for the recovery of money lent by plaintiff to defendant, amounting to $1,500. Defendant, “answering the complaint, denied that he ever was indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatever exceeding the- sum of eighty dollars.” On motion, the Circuit Judge (Wallace), on September 18, 1891, “adjudged that the answer herein is frivolous, and that the plaintiff have judgment thereon in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars and costs.” Judgment was entered September 24, and on September 25, the defendant gave notice of appeal from the order…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Peacock, Hunt & West Co. v. WilliamsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1901
- Atlantic Compress Co. v. ChamblissCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Manufacturers Finance Co. v. BoydSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924