Case Name: PEGUES v. POLSON
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1924-05-14
Citations: 128 S.C. 456
Docket Number: 11515
Parties: PEGUES v. POLSON
Judges: Messrs. Justices Watts, Cothran and Marion concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 456–459

Head Matter:
11515
PEGUES v. POLSON
(123 S. E., 8)
Pleading — -Answer Held Not to Put Title of Plaintiff, Trustee in Bankruptcy in Issue. — Where complaint alleged that a named company had been adjudged a bankrupt and plaintiff appointed trustee for its estate, an answer, alleging that defendant has not sufficient information to either admit or deny that allegation, and therefore demands strict proof thereof, held not to put plaintiff’s title in issue.
Before Rice, J., Chesterfield, 1915.
Affirmed.
Action by B. F. Pegues, as 'Trustee in Bankruptcy, against W. W. Poison. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Messrs. Stevenson & Princ'e for appellant.
Messrs. Hanna & Hunley and Bdward Mc'Iver for respondent.
May 14, 1924.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
There is only one question in this case. The plaintiff brought this action as trustee in bankruptcy. The answer contained the following:
"2. That he has not sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph two thereof, and, therefore, demands strict proof thereof."
The second paragraph of the complaint is:
"That H. J. Sellers Company has been duly adjudged a bankrupt, and that above-named plaintiff has been duly appointed trustee in bankruptcy for the estate of H. J. Sellers."
Over the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff was allowed to prove by parol that he was trustee in bankruptcy. The judgment was for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The appellant claims that the appointement as trustee was in writing and could not be proved by parol. That might be true if the answer had put the plaintiff's title in issue.
In the case of Land Mortgage Co. v. Williams, 35 S. C., 367; 14 S. E., 821, this Court held that such a denial did not put in issue the plaintiff's right to bring the action. The above case is stronger than this case, in that in it there was a denial based upon want of information and belief.
.The judgment is affirmed.
Messrs. Justices Watts, Cothran and Marion concur.
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.