Pegues v. Polson

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Fraser. There is only one question in this case. The plaintiff brought this action as trustee in bankruptcy. The answer contained the following: [457] “2. That he has not sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph two thereof, and, therefore, demands strict proof thereof.” The second paragraph of the complaint is: “That H. J. Sellers Company has been duly adjudged a bankrupt, and that above-named plaintiff has been duly appointed trustee in bankruptcy for the estate of H. J. Sellers.” Over the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff was allowed to prove by parol that he was trustee in bankruptcy. The judgment was for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The appellant claims that the appointement as trustee was in writing and could not be proved by parol. That might be true if the answer had put the plaintiff’s title in issue. In the case of Land Mortgage Co. v. Williams, 35 S. C., 367; 14 S. E., 821, this Court held that such a denial did not put in issue the plaintiff’s right to bring the action. The above case is stronger than this case, in that in it there was a denial based upon want of information and belief. .The judgment is affirmed. Messrs. Justices Watts, Cothran and Marion concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.