Hardin v. Southern Rwy. Co.

122 S.E. 582, 128 S.C. 216, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 204
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided April 22, 1924·No. 11486·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

122 S.E. 582 (Hardin v. Southern Rwy. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tumblin Ex Rel. Estate of Tumblin v. Ball-Incon Glass Packaging Corp.
478 S.E.2d 81 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)
Bessinger v. De Loach
94 S.E.2d 3 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1956)
Smith v. Beard
110 P.2d 260 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1941)
Crawford v. Davis, Director General
134 S.E. 247 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)