Evans v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Evans v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

95 S.E. 335, 109 S.C. 130, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 195

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 23, 1918

Docket9911

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 335 (Evans v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.) 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

Evans v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 95 S.E. 335, 109 S.C. 130, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 195 (S.C. 1918).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by

Mr. Justice Gage.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court which affirmed a magistrate judgment for $5.04, the price of 51 ¿4 pounds of bacon, $4.89,- and the freight charge of 15 cents collected on it, and $50 penalty for neglect to pay loss in due time. There was no dispute about the loss of the bacon or the price of it, and there was no excuse offered why the loss was not promptly paid. The appellant’s only contention is that it was liable to refund, not 15 cents found by the magistrate for freight charge, but only 11 cents. The collection of a penalty is thus made to depend upon a failure of the recovery to come up to the amount claimed by 5 cents.

1 The freight bill only fixes at 21 cents the charge on 100 pounds of bacon. The proportionate charge on 51J4 pounds of bacon would be $10.81. But the freight bill does not fix the charge for less quantity than the hundred. For such quantities no contract price for carrying was proven. It is manifest, therefore, that the magistrate was not limited to award 15 cents for the carriage of 51j^ pounds of bacon. We think, moreover, that the plaintiff practically recovered the full amount claimed. It is a fit case to apply the maxim, “De minimis non curoA lex.”

2 It is true the statute is penal, but it was enacted to meet what had come to be a hurtful policy of delay in payment of ’claims, and to that extent the statute is also remedial.

It may'look to the defendant like a hardship to mount a penalty of $50 on a recovery of about $5. But it may look to the plaintiff like a hardship to force him into a suit at law in three Courts over 5 cents.

[132]*132The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Watts concur.

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 Gage.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court which affirmed a magistrate judgment for $5.04, the price of 51 ¿4 pounds of bacon, $4.89,- and the freight charge of 15 cents collected on it, and $50 penalty for neglect to pay loss in due time. There was no dispute about the loss of the bacon or the price of it, and there was no excuse offered why the loss was not promptly paid. The appellant’s only contention is that it was liable to refund, not 15 cents found by the magistrate for freight charge, but only 11 cents. The collection of a penalty is thus made to depend upon a failure of the recovery to come up to the amount claimed by 5 cents.

1 The freight bill only fixes at 21 cents the charge on 100 pounds of bacon. The proportionate charge on 51J4 pounds of bacon would be $10.81. But the freight bill does not fix the charge for less quantity than the hundred. For such quantities no contract price for carrying was proven. It is manifest, therefore, that the magistrate was not limited to award 15 cents for the carriage of 51j^ pounds of bacon. We think, moreover, that the plaintiff practically recovered the full amount claimed. It is a fit case to apply the maxim, “De minimis non curoA lex.”

2 It is true the statute is penal, but it was enacted to meet what had come to be a hurtful policy of delay in payment of ’claims, and to that extent the statute is also remedial.

It may'look to the defendant like a hardship to mount a penalty of $50 on a recovery of about $5. But it may look to the plaintiff like a hardship to force him into a suit at law in three Courts over 5 cents.

[132]*132The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Watts concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 335, 109 S.C. 130, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-atlantic-coast-line-r-r-sc-1918.