Case Name: Ernest R. COUCH, N. C. M., by Ruthie Jerome Scarborough, next friend v. Dr. Ramino J. MARTINEZ et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1978-02-08
Citations: 357 So. 2d 107
Docket Number: No. 50156
Parties: Ernest R. COUCH, N. C. M., by Ruthie Jerome Scarborough, next friend v. Dr. Ramino J. MARTINEZ et al.
Judges: INZER, P. J., SMITH, P. J., ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 357
Pages: 107–111

Head Matter:
Ernest R. COUCH, N. C. M., by Ruthie Jerome Scarborough, next friend v. Dr. Ramino J. MARTINEZ et al.
No. 50156.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Feb. 8, 1978.
Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.
William E. Ready, Meridian, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
EN BANC:
BOWLING, Justice,
for The Court:
On September 28, 1977, this cause was affirmed without a written opinion. The appellant has filed his petition for rehearing and brief thereon. A majority of the Court are of the opinion that the petition should be granted. The heretofore affirmance of the cause without written opinion is therefore set aside and the following opinion adopted.
Appellant, a non compos mentis, by next friend, filed his declaration in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County. The lower court sustained a general demurrer filed by both defendants to the declaration. It would serve no useful purpose to set out the declaration in this opinion and discuss in detail each part thereof as to whether all parts taken together state a cause of action. It suffices to say that a majority of the Court are of the opinion that a cause of action is sufficiently stated to require that the general demurrers be overruled and the cause proceed to further development under rules of practice and procedure.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-35 (1972) states:
The declaration shall contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition; and if it contains sufficient matter of substance for the court to proceed upon the merits of the case, it shall be sufficient. It shall not be an objection to maintaining any action that the form thereof should have been different.
The declaration prepared by appellant's attorney is inartfully drawn and should have stated appellant's cause of action more clearly than was done. As heretofore stated, however, a majority of the Court are of the opinion that the allegations of the declaration come within the provisions of the above statute. The cause is therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
INZER, P. J., SMITH, P. J., ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ., concur.
PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG, WALKER, and BROOM, JJ., dissent.