Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Monroe Bros.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Gage;, J., Anderson, Action by Pittsburg Plate Glass Company against J. F. and R. A. Monroe, trading as Monroe Bros. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. T'he allegations in point in the answer is “but specifically deny each and every allegation of the said complaint, including all allegations of paragraph three thereof.”
Read the full summary
Before Gage;, J., Anderson, Action by Pittsburg Plate Glass Company against J. F. and R. A. Monroe, trading as Monroe Bros. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. T'he allegations in point in the answer is “but specifically deny each and every allegation of the said complaint, including all allegations of paragraph three thereof.” Paragraph three alleges delivery of goods. cite: Evidence as to other litigations irrelevant: Green Ev., 13a, 14a, 14b; 5 Ency., 861, 866; 61 S. C., 30-5. General denial raises issue of corporate capacity: 1 Ency. P. & P., 782-. Evidence should have been…
1ConcurrenceJustice Gary
C. N. & L. R. R., 70 S. C., 329, 49 S. E., 849, and Dellency v. Granite Co., 72 S. C., 39, 51 S. E., 531, show that the corporate existence of the defendant was not put in issue, as there was not a demurrer or defense raising such question.
Mr. Justice Jones.
While I think there was technical error in excluding testimony as complained in the fifth exception, this ruling was rendered harmless by subsequently permitting full testimony of defendants 'as to the injury sustained by them by being restricted to a partial use of the building.
Mr. Justice Woods concurs in the result.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Delleney v. Winnsboro Granite Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Battle v. Columbia, Newberry & Laurens R. R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1904