
    PIKE v. SPARTANBURG RAILWAY, GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.
    1. Amendment of Pleadings. — Order requiring plaintiff to amend her amended complaint so as to conform to order requiring more specific allegations, proper here.
    2. Discretion. — Extension of Time to Answer is within discretion of Circuit Judge, and here properly exercised.
    Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, June, 1903.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Minnie H. Pike, admx., against Spartanburg Railway, Gas and Electric Co. From order requiring plaintiff to further amend complaint, she appeals.
    
      Messrs. Joseph L. Stoppelbein, and Fvans & Finley, for appellant,
    cite: Not necessary to allege that defendants knew of defects in machinery: 35 S. C., 407; 18 S. C., 363, 375; 33 S. C., 301. Master is charged with knowledge of defects: 34 S. C., 314; 18 S. C., 363; 33 S. C., 93. Not necessary to allege date when and person who called attention of master to defects: 34 S. C., 316; 18 S. C., 381; 35 S. C., 407.
    
      Mr. C. P. Sanders, contra,
    cites: Plaintiff’s appeal is premature: Code, 11; 43 S. C., 547; 53 S. C., 587.
    March 25, 1903.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

This is an appeal by- plaintiff from an order of Judge Watts, requiring plaintiff to make her complaint definite and certain, in accordance with the previous order of Judge Townsend. The defendant also appealed, but at the hearing abandoned the same. In the effort to comply with the order of Judge Townsend, plaintiff prepared and served an amended complaint. On defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to further amend her complaint in conformity with Judge Townsend’s order, Judge Watts held that the amended complaint conformed to Judge Townsend’s order in every particular save one, which he specified, and ordered plaintiff to comply therein, and further allowed defendant twenty days in which to answer after service of the complaint, amended as directed. Plaintiff’s exceptions complaint of the order in both particulars.

We see no error. There was no appeal from the order of Judge Townsend, and whether right or wrong, it was the law in the case. Judge Watts could not and did not undertake to review or overrule the order of Judge Townsend, but merely undertook to require compliance therewith, and in this he was right.

The extension of the time in which to answer was within his discretion, and entirely proper under the circumstances.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.  