Dingle v. Northwestern R. Co. of S.C.

99 S.E. 828, 112 S.C. 390, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 133
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 14, 1919
Docket10237
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 828 (Dingle v. Northwestern R. Co. of S.C.) 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
Dingle v. Northwestern R. Co. of S.C., 99 S.E. 828, 112 S.C. 390, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 133 (S.C. 1919).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

The plaintiff was walking on a path along the railroad track of the defendant company. The plaintiff alleges that while he was walking along this path, that had been used for many years, a train of the defendant came suddenly upon him; that he jumped out of the way and caught a limb to keep him away from the passing train; that the limb brokef and he fell against the train and was injured.

The case was tried in a magistrate’s Court. The jury found a verdict against the defendant. It appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court reversed the magistrate’s Court on the facts, and dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff appealed with three exceptions.

1 This Court has no jurisdiction to review the findings of fact by the Circuit Court.

2 The first question of law is as to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to reverse the findings of fact by the magistrate’s Court.

Section 407, Code of Civil Procedure, provides: “In giving judgment, the Court may affirm or reverse the judgment of the Court below, in whole or in part, and as to any or all the parties and for errors of law or fact.”

*392 The Circuit Court had jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact, and the findings of fact by the Circuit Court, on appeal from the magistrate’s Court, is final.

3 That the Circuit Judge erred, as a matter of law, in dismissing the complaint.

When the Circuit Judge found that the defendant was not guilty of negligence, there was nothing left in the case, and a dismissal of the complaint was the only thing he could do.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

Related

Henry v. Tucker
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2007
Parks v. Characters Night Club
548 S.E.2d 605 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)
Hadfield v. Gilchrist
538 S.E.2d 268 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)
Vacation Time of Hilton Head Island, Inc. v. Kiwi Corp.
312 S.E.2d 20 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)
Prosser v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
56 S.E.2d 591 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1949)
Wright v. Ritz Theatre Co.
44 S.E.2d 308 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1947)
Thomas v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co.
167 S.E. 239 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Hart v. Cook Brokerage Co.
133 S.E. 822 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
Behrman v. A.C.L.R. R. Co.
109 S.E. 397 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 S.E. 828, 112 S.C. 390, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingle-v-northwestern-r-co-of-sc-sc-1919.