answer defense in South Carolina

1986Germofert Manufacturing Co. v. Castles, 97 S. C. 389, 81 S. E. 665 (1914).

1966Blackwell v. United Insurance Company of America, 229 S. C. 296, 92 S. E. (2d) 702 ; West’s South Carolina Digest, Pleading, — 359.

1956Baker v. Allen, 220 S. C. 141, 66 S. E. (2d) 618 ; Scott v. Meek, 228 S. C. 29, 88 S. E. (2d) 768 .

1956Baker v. Allen, 220 S. C. 141, 66 S. E. (2d) 618 ; Scott v. Meek, 228 S. C. 29, 88 S. E. (2d) 768 .

1927In Smith v. Smith, 50 S. C., 54; 27 S. E., 545 , the Court quotes Pomeroy, Code Remedies, § 661 : “An allegation is irrelevant, when the issue formed by its denial can have no connection with, nor effect upon the cause of action (quoted also in the Germofert Case).” The motion of the plaintiff is directed against the entire answer as irrelevant, and not to the separate defenses severally.

1926In 1 Jones, Mortgage (6th Ed.), 876, it is said: “The test of the right of subrogation is found an answer to the inquiry whether the person who paid the mortgage debt is the one whose duty it was to pay it first of all; if the debt was not primarily his, and he occupied the position of a surety to the mortgagor, he is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the mortgagee'when he has paid the debt; but, if the debt is the debt of the person who paid it or is a debt which he has covenanted to pay, his payment of it raises no right of subrogation, but is simply a performance of his own oblig

1919In Martin v. Railway, 70 S. C. 8, 48 S. E. 616 , the Court said: “The proposition that a Court is obliged to receive evidence which does not tend to establish any fact from which, under the pleadings, a legal conclusion would result, merely because the immediate litigants are not in a position to complain, cannot for a moment be entertained.