Case ID: sc_97/html/0396-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Gary.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

8846
    GERMOFERT FERTILIZER CO. v. SCRUGGS.
    (81 S. E. 667.)
    Pleadings. Sham.
    Counterclaim in action for purchase money of fertilizers sold, held to be improperly stricken out as sham under Germofert Fert. Co. v. Castles, swpra.
    
    Before Gage, J.,,
    Winnsboro',
    January, 1914.
    Reversed.
    Action by Germofert Fertilizer Company against A. Lee Scruggs to recover purchase price for fertilizers sold. From an order striking out counterclaim in answer „ as sham, defendant appeals.
    
      Mr. Geo. W. Ragsdale, for appellant, cites:
    
      General-denials: 9 S. C. 439. Allegations of frmid: 61 S. C. 190; 62 S. C. 42; 78 S. C. 482; 50 S. C. 397; 80 S. C. 298; 58 S. C. 56; 26 S. C. 275; 2 Hill L. 657; Bliss Code Pldg. 211; 95 S. C. 390; Crim. Code,, sec. 507. Counterclaim: Code Civil Proc. 200; 11 S. C. 337; Simpkins v. R. R. Co., 20 S. C. 258; 71 S. C. 404; 43 S. C. 63; 34 Cyc. 703, 706. Failure of consideration: 40 S. C. 31; 80 S. C. 297'; 85 S. C. 492; 77 Cyc. 493. Fraud: 70 S. C.' 115; 2 Rich. L. 154; 20 S. C. 503; 64 S. C. 69; 68 S. C. 106; 71 S. C. 150. Frivolous pleading: 27 S. C. 164.
    
      Messrs. Nathans & Sinkler, for respondent, cite:
    
      Essentials in alleging frmid: 31 Iowa 344. Contract in writing clew' and unambiguous, pw'ol testimony inadmissible to prove allegations: Wald’s Pollock, Contracts 457; 69 S. C. 99; 1 Greenleaf Ev. 227, 275; 27 S. C. 380; 83 S. C. 205; 74 S. C. 576; Pom. Code Rem. 641.
    May 6, 1914.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

■ The facts in this case are similar to those in the case of Germofert Mfg. Co. v. S. F. Castles, 81 S. E. 665, in which the opinion has just been filed. In that case, the motion to strike out certain allegations in the defenses set up in the answer was made upon .the ground that said allegations were sham and irrelevant, while the motion in the present case was based upon the ground that similar allegations were irrelevant and redundant.

There is no. difference in principle between the two cases.

Order reversed.

Mr. Justice Gage did not sit in this case.