Massey v. Hines, Director General

108 S.E. 181, 117 S.C. 1, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 133
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided August 1, 1921·No. 10680·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

The opinion of the'Court was-delivered'by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The sole question in this case is whether or not the Director General of Railroads while in federal control of 'a railroad is liable, in punitive damages for the willful tort of his agents and servants.

1 The question is answered in the negative by the decision of this Court in Rowell v. Hines, 114 S. C. 339; 103 S. E. 545; Ginn v. Hines, 114 S. C. 236; 103 S. E., 548, and by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Missouri, etc., Railroad Co. v. Ault, decided June 1, 1921, 254 U. S.-; 41 Sup. Ct., 593; 65 E. Ed.,-, where it is declared:

"The purpose for which the government permitted itself to be sued Was compensation, not punishment.”

The judgment of this Court is that so much of the judgment of the Circuit Court as is for $8,000 actual damages, be affirmed, and that so much of the judgment as is for $12,000 punitive damages be reversed.

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

Massey v. Hines, Director General, 108 S.E. 181, 117 S.C. 1, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 133 (S.C. 1921).

108 S.E. 181 (Massey v. Hines, Director General) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gibbs v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
70 S.E.2d 238 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1952)
Dill v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins.
54 S.E.2d 787 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1949)
Dill v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co.
54 S.E.2d 787 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1949)
Key, Admx. v. Charleston W.C. Rwy. Co.
142 S.E. 336 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1928)
Laird v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
134 S.E. 220 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
Fyfe v. Davis
197 Iowa 1091 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Payne v. Domestic Electric Co.
113 S.E. 811 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)