Interstate Chemical Corp. v. Farmington Corp.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Moore, J., Winnsboro, June, 1914. Action by Interstate Chemical Company against Farmington Corporation, H. B. Heath and W. C. Heath. From judgment for plaintiff, the Farmington Corporation and W. C. Heath appeal.' The facts are stated in the opinion. submit: To be sham a pleading must be false: 20 Enc.
Read the full summary
Before Moore, J., Winnsboro, June, 1914. Action by Interstate Chemical Company against Farmington Corporation, H. B. Heath and W. C. Heath. From judgment for plaintiff, the Farmington Corporation and W. C. Heath appeal.' The facts are stated in the opinion. submit: To be sham a pleading must be false: 20 Enc. PI. & Pr. 13; 31 Cyc. 623, 624, 628; 97 S. C. 389; 44 S. C. 143; 69 S. C. 559; 97 S. C. 389. Defendant should have been allowed to plead over: Code Civil Proc. 306, 202 and 223.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court, whereby the answer was stricken out as sham, and judgment was awarded the plaintiff against the defendant for $3,596.10. There are four exceptions, but there are only two issues: (1) was the answer sham, and (2) if it was, ought the Court to have given judgment for the sum sued for. The appellant does not contend that the sham character of the answer may not be shown by evidence.
The plaintiff sued in the spring of 1914 on five notes aggregating $3,287.20, dated in May and June, 1913, and all…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Burkhalter v. TownsendSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
- Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
- Bank of Johnston v. FrippSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
- Bank of Fort Mill v. RollinsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
- Union Guano Company v. GarrisonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.