Galloway v. Hodge

150 S.E. 767, 153 S.C. 300, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 29
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 13, 1929
Docket12785
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 767 (Galloway v. Hodge) 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
Galloway v. Hodge, 150 S.E. 767, 153 S.C. 300, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 29 (S.C. 1929).

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Brease.

I cannot agree with the conclusion of Mr. Justice Carter, and think the Circuit Judge was correct.

The law, as I understand it, in cases of this character, requires the plaintiff to show some damage to himself differing in kind and degree from that suffered by the public generally. The only damage of that kind really attempted to be established was as to the blacksmith business of the plaintiff. On his direct examination, the plaintiff was asked by his counsel this: “Has your business (as a blacksmith) been injured since this road was closed?” The reply was, “I haven’t had as much since this thing occurred; whether this is the cause of it, I don’t know, to tell you the truth, but I haven’t had as much business for the last three years.” That testimony certainly did not establish the plaintiff’s claim. Therefore I think the nonsuit was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

Messrs.- Justices Cothran and StabrEr concur. *302 Mr. Chief Justice Watts and Mr. Justice Carter dissent.

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

Related

Leitzsey v. Fellers
187 S.E. 740 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 S.E. 767, 153 S.C. 300, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galloway-v-hodge-sc-1929.