Case Name: Richard Winn v. Benjamin Waring
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1810-05
Citations: 2 Brev. 428
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Winn v. Benjamin Waring.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
MAY, 1810.
Richard Winn v. Benjamin Waring.
^ demurrer admits all matters of fact well pleaded, but no matter of fact not well pleaded.
A plea cannot be set aside as frivolous, unless it be irrelevant; and clearly so at first sight, or nonsensical.
Motion to reverse a decision of Waties, J., in Richland district. Sci. fa. to reyive a judgment. The defendant pleaded a discharge under the act respecting prison bounds. Plaintiff replied that defendant had not rendered a true account or schedule of his property, but had concealed part of his effects.
Motion in the District Court to strike out this replication as a frivolous plea; which was overruled. Motion in this court to reverse the decision of the District Court, on three grounds. 1. Because a replication is a departure from the declaration. 2. Because the discharge of the defendant, under the prison bounds act, is conclusive as to the subject matter of the replication, and ought not again to be put in. issue. 3. Because the issue tendered by the replication is an immaterial issue.
Argued May 2d, 1810, by Nott, for the defendant, who insisted that the plaintiffs should have answered the matter of the plea, or demurred; and that he could not introduce new matter in the replication. Cited 2 Wils. 98. The replication should have supported and fortified the declaration, and not departed from it. If the plea was ill, it should have been objected to by demurrer.
Stark, contra,
insisted that if the replication was exceptionable, it should have been demurred to ; and that it could not be branded and scouted as a frivolous plea. 5 Com. Dig. 431.

Opinion:
May 5th, 1810.
Brevard, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the case, he said, that it was the clear opinion of the whole court, that the decision of the District Court was correct. That pleas, which may be rejected as frivolous, must be such as are impertinent, or nonsensical — trifling with the dignity of the court, and the majesty of the law ; such pleas, on which no serious question of fact or law can properly arise. But this is not such a plea. A question of law may arise upon it; arid the legal merits of that question cannot be properly tried on a motion to set aside the plea as frivolous. The merits of the plea itself, whether frivolous or no., can o ;'y be tried, and that must be tried upon the apparent propriety of the plea, without any discussion, or consideration, of extrinsic circumstances. If it appear to be, at first blush, a material plea, and has form, it cannot be rejected as frivolous. The plaintiff, if he chose to question the legal effect, or propriety, of the replication, might have demurred to it, and tons have brought the question of law before the court, upon the record, it has, however, been contended in atgument, that, by demurring, the defendant would have admittted the facts stated in the replication, end thereby precluded himself from an advantage which otherwise he could not be deprived of, to the prejudice of the substantial merits of his cause. The answer to this is, that a demurrer admits all facts which are well pleaded, but none other. Therefore if the replication was not well pleaded in law, and was obnoxious to a demurrer, there could be no danger in demurring to it; because no matter could be considered as admitted which was not well pleaded ; and if the facts were well pleaded, there could be no pretence to say that the replication'was frivolous. The replicatipn is either good, or not. If good, there is no ground for saying it is frivolous.. If ill, a demur, rer admits nothing which can advantage the plaintiff.
Note. Defendant might have protested that he had rendered a just and true account, &c , and then for plea demurred. See Plowd. 355. This would, at all events, have excluded the admission so much' dreaded. Quere A protestation is a saving to a party, who takes it from being concluded by any matter alleged or objected against him, upon which he cannot take issue. Plow 276. Co. Litt. 124, c. '2 Saund. 103, a. note 1. Com Dig. Pleader, N. It does not avail the party that takes it, if the issue be found aaainst him; but only where it is found for him, prevents a conclusion. &c. Finch L. 359. Plow. 276. A dímurrer confesses nothing but what is materially afledged. 12 Mod. 578.
Motion rejected.