Hambright v. Southern Railway

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hambright v. Southern Railway

82 S.E. 416, 98 S.C. 219, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 34

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 17, 1914

Docket8890

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 416 (Hambright v. Southern Railway) 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

Hambright v. Southern Railway, 82 S.E. 416, 98 S.C. 219, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 34 (S.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order allowing the plaintiff to amend the summons and complaint, by substituting' the name of “Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company,” instead of the defendant, “Southern Railway—Carolina Division;” also from an order refusing- the motion, to allow the defendant h> tax costs against the plaintiff.

The order allowing- the amendment was, in effect, a dismissal of the complaint against the defendant, Southern Railway—Carolina Division, and was not prejudicial to its rights. Therefore the exception assigning error in this respect is overruled. But, as the order was, practically, a dismissal of the complaint, the defendant was entitled to its costs, and there was error in refusing to allow the defendant to tax them against the plaintiff.

Modified.

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. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order allowing the plaintiff to amend the summons and complaint, by substituting' the name of “Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company,” instead of the defendant, “Southern Railway—Carolina Division;” also from an order refusing- the motion, to allow the defendant h> tax costs against the plaintiff.

The order allowing- the amendment was, in effect, a dismissal of the complaint against the defendant, Southern Railway—Carolina Division, and was not prejudicial to its rights. Therefore the exception assigning error in this respect is overruled. But, as the order was, practically, a dismissal of the complaint, the defendant was entitled to its costs, and there was error in refusing to allow the defendant to tax them against the plaintiff.

Modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 416, 98 S.C. 219, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hambright-v-southern-railway-sc-1914.