50 S.C. 54 | S.C. | 1897
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
In order to understand clearly the facts of this case, it will be necessary to set out in the report of the case the complaint, the notice of motion, the order of his Honor, Judge Watts, and the exceptions to the said order.
The exceptions raise practically but three questions, to wit: 1st. Was there error on the part of the Circuit Judge in refusing to strike out various allegations in the complaint because they were irrelevant, redundant, evidentiary, and mere surplusage? 2d. Was the Circuit Judge in error in refusing to require the plaintiff to set forth clearly whether the action was for alimony on the ground of desertion, or on the ground of both desertion and cruelty, and thus make the complaint definite and certain? 3d. Was the Circuit Judge in error in refusing to require the plaintiff to state separately the alleged cause of action for desertion, and the alleged cause of action for cruelty?
Having reached the conclusion that the complaint states only one cause of action, it necessarily follows that the Circuit Judge was not in error in refusing to require the plaintiff to state two causes of action separately.
It is the judgement of this Court, that the order of the Circuit Court be affirmed.