Martin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Martin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

93 S.E. 336, 108 S.C. 130, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 203

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 3, 1917

Docket9797

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 336 (Martin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. 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

Martin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 93 S.E. 336, 108 S.C. 130, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 203 (S.C. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

Defendant appealed from judgment for plaintiff for negligent injury to plaintiff’s automobile.

*131 The exceptions present two assignments of error:

1 1. That the Court erred in refusing'to direct the verdict for defendant, on the ground that plaintiff had no title to the automobile, because he had given a mortgage on it which was past due and unpaid. That defense was properly overruled on the authority of Wilkes v. Railway, 85 S. C. 346, 67 S. E. 292, 137 Am. St. Rep. 890, 21 Ann. Cas. 79. See, also, the editorial note to that case, and 11 C. J. 598. Defendant knew of the mortgage, and, under the case cited, could have protected itself against another action by the mortgagee by having him made a party to this action.

2 2. That the Court charged on the facts in referring to the automobile as plaintiff’s property. The right of plaintiff was not a question of fact. As matter of law, under the case cited, he had such property right in the automobile as entitled him to maintain the action.

Judgment affirmed.

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 Hydrick.

Defendant appealed from judgment for plaintiff for negligent injury to plaintiff’s automobile.

*131 The exceptions present two assignments of error:

1 1. That the Court erred in refusing'to direct the verdict for defendant, on the ground that plaintiff had no title to the automobile, because he had given a mortgage on it which was past due and unpaid. That defense was properly overruled on the authority of Wilkes v. Railway, 85 S. C. 346, 67 S. E. 292, 137 Am. St. Rep. 890, 21 Ann. Cas. 79. See, also, the editorial note to that case, and 11 C. J. 598. Defendant knew of the mortgage, and, under the case cited, could have protected itself against another action by the mortgagee by having him made a party to this action.

2 2. That the Court charged on the facts in referring to the automobile as plaintiff’s property. The right of plaintiff was not a question of fact. As matter of law, under the case cited, he had such property right in the automobile as entitled him to maintain the action.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 336, 108 S.C. 130, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-seaboard-air-line-ry-co-sc-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack