Finally, appellant charges error in the conclusion of
the trial court that question of the alleged partnership
was not raised by the answer. There was no
error. The answer did not contain specific denial of partnership,
which was necessary to make an issue thereabout; the
general denial did not. Griffin v. McCain, 126 S.C. 506,
120 S.E. 95; Grand Piano Co. v. Lewis, 1942, 179 Va. 281,
19 S.E.2d 86. "In a number of jurisdictions,
however, under statutes or rules of court, a plea of the general
issue does not raise the issue of the existence of the
partnership alleged." 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 221, b, p. 710.
Nor was it error, certainly not an abuse of the court's discretion, within which it lay, to deny the motion of appellant to amend his answer to belatedly deny the partnership. It came after the close of plaintiff's case and it would have been unfair to it to then inject an issue which was not made by the pleadings upon which the parties went to trial. If allowed, it would have substantially changed the defense: indeed, it would have interposed a new defense. Sec. 10-692, Code of 1952. Cuthbert v. Brown, 49 S.C. 513, 27 S.E. 485; Martin v. Fowler, 51 S.C. 164, 28 S.E. 312.