Case Name: GERMOFERT FERTILIZER CO. v. SCRUGGS
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1914-05-06
Citations: 97 S.C. 396
Docket Number: 8846
Parties: GERMOFERT FERTILIZER CO. v. SCRUGGS.
Judges: Mr. Justice Gage did not sit in this case.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.