Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Gregory

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 15, 1938No. 14793PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

In his order allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint, the Circuit Judge sufficiently states the nature of the controversy and the issues involved. The defendant contends (1) that the complaint, as amended, states a new cause of action, and (2) that such cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

Under the facts shown, if appellant’s first contention is right, then his second must be sustained. As stated in Coral Gables v. Palmetto Brick Co., 183 S. C., 478, 191 S. E., 337, 341, “an amendment of a complaint will not be allowed if a wholly new cause o.f action is thereby…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ebner v. Haverty Furniture Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
  2. Coral Gables, Inc. v. Palmetto Brick Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
  3. Heller, Hirsh & Co. v. Charleston Phosphate Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1888

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lightner v. Duke Power Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1989
  2. White v. Benedict College, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
  3. Arrowood Estates, Inc. v. Westgate Shopping Center, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API