Whaley v. Lawton
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before WATTS, J., Charleston, November, 1897. Action for damages for malicious prosecution by W. S. Whaley v. W. W. Lawton.
Read the full summary
Before WATTS, J., Charleston, November, 1897. Action for damages for malicious prosecution by W. S. Whaley v. W. W. Lawton. From order refusing defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to make his amended complaint more definite and certain, defendant appeals. cite: Defendant did not waive the motion by answering: Code, 181; 34 S. C., 274; 11 S. C., 411; 12 S. C., 1; 22 S. C., 372. In an action at law, respondent cannot ask that a judgment be stts-tained on other groimds which record does not disclose has been before lower court: 33 S. C., 505. Suits for inj^lry to character and for injury to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
*5821 *581This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion to make an amended complaint more definite and certain. In refusing the motion, the Circuit Court said: “While I hold the complaint is subject to the objection alleged, still, by filing his answer, defendant has waived the objection.” The amended complaint was served On August 6th, 1897. By written agreement of plaintiff’s counsel, on August 21st, 1897, the time for answering, pleading or demurring was extended until September 7th, 1897. Then, on September 3d, 1897, a further…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hammond v. EarleNew York Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by8 opinions
- South Carolina State Highway Department v. Isthmian S.S. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
- Johnson v. FingerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
- Bryce v. Southern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1904
- Lenhardt v. FrenchSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
- Lawrence v. LawrenceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.