Hardin v. Southern Rwy. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hardin v. Southern Rwy. Co.

122 S.E. 582, 128 S.C. 216, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 204

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 22, 1924

Docket11486

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 582 (Hardin v. Southern Rwy. Co.) 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

Hardin v. Southern Rwy. Co., 122 S.E. 582, 128 S.C. 216, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 204 (S.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Cothran,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Circuit Judge was in error in holding that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred under the Federal Employers’ Riability Act, because it was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued. It does not appear, upon the face of the complaint, that both the employee and the railroad company were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the alleged injury, facts essential to the application of that Act. If it had so appeared, the conclusion would have been correct.

*223 The other grounds of the demurrer were properly sustained, for the reasons stated by the Circuit Judge in his order, which is accordingly affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser and Marion concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

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

Mr. Justice Cothran,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Circuit Judge was in error in holding that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred under the Federal Employers’ Riability Act, because it was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued. It does not appear, upon the face of the complaint, that both the employee and the railroad company were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the alleged injury, facts essential to the application of that Act. If it had so appeared, the conclusion would have been correct.

*223 The other grounds of the demurrer were properly sustained, for the reasons stated by the Circuit Judge in his order, which is accordingly affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser and Marion concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 582, 128 S.C. 216, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardin-v-southern-rwy-co-sc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack