Buie v. Brown
J. McC. Buie v. Samuel Brown.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Merrimon, C. J.
— after stating the case: It seems to us very clear that the answer was not frivolous. On the contrary, it raised material issues of fact that should have been submitted to a jury in the orderly course of procedure, and alleged equities which, if they exist, ought to be administered in the action.
It is true, the allegations of the answer are not so precise or positive as they might or properly ought to be, but the substance of the purpose and the nature of the defence relied upon appear with tolerable certainty.
It would be very much better if every pleading should be formal, certain, orderly, precise and as positive as its nature and the subject matter of it will allow, but, nevertheless, if it is intelligible, and the Court can see the substance of its purpose and the matter pleaded, it should be upheld. The Court ought not to hasten to condemn and disregard it.
*337 Indeed, the statute (The Code, § 260) requires that, “In the-construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations shall be liberally construed, with a view of substantial justice between the parties”; and it further provides (§ 261) that, “when the allegations of a pleading are so indefinite or uncertain that the precise nature of the charge or defence is not apparent, the Court may require the pleading to be made definite and certain by amendment.”' The purpose of the statute is to help the pleadings in proper cases by amendment with a view to promote justice. The Court may ex mero viotu direct appropriate amendments to-be made, or it may do so upon the application of a party interested.
The answer of the defendant to the allegation in the complaint in respect to the judgment for the balance of the purchase money is not definite or satisfactory — it seems to be-insincere and evasive — but the Court should not, on that-account have treated the whole answer as frivolous. Indeed, it should have required the defendant to make his answer in such respect certain, and so in other respects as well. It may be that the answer is false, but, treating it as a pleading— it is serious — raises important issues of fact, and discloses substantial grounds of defence.
The judgment must be set aside, and further proceedings had in the action according to law.
Error.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss but requiring, sua sponte, the plaintiff to file a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e))
Cited by 17 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.