Cooper v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cooper v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.

58 S.E. 930, 78 S.C. 81, 1907 S.C. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 6, 1907

Docket6640

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 S.E. 930 (Cooper v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooper v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 58 S.E. 930, 78 S.C. 81, 1907 S.C. LEXIS 205 (S.C. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

In this action, brought in a magistrate court, plaintiff sought to recover of defendant $8.00 damages by breakage while in its possession to a shipment of a box of crockery ware from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Blaney, S. C., and $50.00 penalty for failure to adjust and pay the claim within ninety days after the filing thereof, as prescribed by the act of February 23, 1903, 24 Stat., 81. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, which, on appeal to the Circuit Court, was set aside and the case remanded to the magistrate court for new trial because of error in the admission of testimony. On the second trial before the magistrate, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $58.00, and on appeal to the Circuit Court, this judgment was affirmed, from which defendant appealed to this Court on one exception, assigning error to the Circuit Court in holding the act of February 23, 1903, 24 Stat., 81, not violative of art. 1, sec. 8, clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States relating to interstate commerce.

On the trial before the magistrate court, defendant offered no testimony, and the only testimony offered by plaintiff was proof of damage by breakage to the goods received. There was a presumption, therefore, that the goods were damaged while in the possession of defendant, the terminal carrier. Willet v. Ry. Co., 66 S. C., 478; Walker v. Ry., *83 76 S. C., 309, and the finding of fact on this point by the Circuit Court is conclusive. This case, therefore, falls within the principle stated in Charles v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., ante, 36, which sustained the constitutionality of this statute as applied to carriers doing business in this State in whose possession goods were lost or damaged.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

In this action, brought in a magistrate court, plaintiff sought to recover of defendant $8.00 damages by breakage while in its possession to a shipment of a box of crockery ware from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Blaney, S. C., and $50.00 penalty for failure to adjust and pay the claim within ninety days after the filing thereof, as prescribed by the act of February 23, 1903, 24 Stat., 81. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, which, on appeal to the Circuit Court, was set aside and the case remanded to the magistrate court for new trial because of error in the admission of testimony. On the second trial before the magistrate, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $58.00, and on appeal to the Circuit Court, this judgment was affirmed, from which defendant appealed to this Court on one exception, assigning error to the Circuit Court in holding the act of February 23, 1903, 24 Stat., 81, not violative of art. 1, sec. 8, clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States relating to interstate commerce.

On the trial before the magistrate court, defendant offered no testimony, and the only testimony offered by plaintiff was proof of damage by breakage to the goods received. There was a presumption, therefore, that the goods were damaged while in the possession of defendant, the terminal carrier. Willet v. Ry. Co., 66 S. C., 478; Walker v. Ry., *83 76 S. C., 309, and the finding of fact on this point by the Circuit Court is conclusive. This case, therefore, falls within the principle stated in Charles v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., ante, 36, which sustained the constitutionality of this statute as applied to carriers doing business in this State in whose possession goods were lost or damaged.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 S.E. 930, 78 S.C. 81, 1907 S.C. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-seaboard-air-line-ry-sc-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack