Case ID: sc_135/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11944
    GREEN v. ATLANTA & C. A. L. RY. CO. ET AL.
    
    (132 S. E., 172)
    Appeal and Error. — Order Refusing Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint and to Make Complaint More Definite and Certain, not Involving Merits, is not Appealable Before Final Judgment, as Defendant Can Examine Adversary Before Trial.— Order refusing motion to strike out certain portions of complaint and to make complaint more definite- and certain, not involving merits, is not appealable before final judgment, since defendant can attain end sought by examination of its adversary before trial.
    Before Bonham, J., Spartanburg,
    April, 1925.
    Affirmed.
    Action by R. F. Green against the Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Company and another. From an order refusing a motion to strike out certain portions of the complaint and to make the complaint more definite and certain, defendants appeal.
    
      Mr. Prank G. Tompkins and DePass & Wrightson, for appellants
    cite: Ref mal of motion to require complaint to be made more definite and certain appealable: 78 S. C., 562. Same; before final judgment: 128 S. E., 711; 101 S. C., 437; 93 S. C., 556; 81 S. C., 354; 52 S. C., 584. Merits: 11 S. C., 122. Case distinguished: 65 S. C., 222. Complaint too general: 6 Enc. PI. & Pr., 257. Irrelevant arid redundant allegations remaining in complaint may• be supported by proof: 61 S. C., 329.
    
      
      Messrs. I. C. Blackwood and C. H. Ddniel, for respondent,
    cite: Former appeal: 131 S. C., 130. Order refusing to strike out allegations as irrelevant and redundant not appeal-able: 120 S. C„ 145; 109 S. C, 111; 101 S. C., 378; 101 S. C., 150; 96 S. C., 355; 96 S. C., 348; 93 S. C., 61; 87 S. C., 247; 81 S. C., 303; 78 S. C„ 562; 77 S. C., 441; 77 S. C., 367; 76 S. C., 192; 74 S. C., 13. Object of motion to make more definite and certain: 81 S. C., 130. Motions to strike out and to make more definite and certain should be heard before answer or demurrer: 128 S. E., 711; 102 S. C., 357; Rule 20 of Circuit Courts, 1922. Multiplicity of useless appeals prohibited: 74 S. C., 16. Order appealed from not affecting merits: 109 S. C., 112.
    March 13, 1926.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy.

This is an appeal from an order made by his Honor, Judge Bonham, refusing a motion made by defendant to strike out certain portions of the complaint and to make the complaint more definite and certain in some particulars. His Honor disposed of the motion as follows:

“After argument I am of the opinion that the motion should be refused and it is so ordered.”

Notice of additional grounds for sustaining the ruling below was given, and this Court is asked to sustain the order appealed from because it appears from the case that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at this time, in that the appeal is before finál judgment, and is from an order made by the Circuit Court within its discretionary power, refusing motions to strike out portions of a complaint, and to require it made more definite and certain, which order does not involve the merits and is not appealable.

“An order refusing a motion to strike out portions of pleadings as being irrelevant and redundant, it has been repeatedly held by this Court, is not appealable before final judgment.” Friendship Baptist Church v. Hill, 112 S. E., 826; 120 S. C., 145.

“An order refusing to require the plaintiff to make the complaint more definite and certain, it not appealable before final judgment unless, it involves the merits of the case.” Pendleton v. Railway, Gas & Electric Co. (S. C.),128 S. E., 711.

The defendant can attain the end sought by an examination of its adversary before trial, as is clearly pointed out in the case of White v. Bankers’ National Life Insurance Co. (S. C.), 132 S. E., 171 (filed March 5, 1926).

The exceptions, therefore, are overruled, and the order appealed from is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Cothran, BlEase, and Stabler concur.