Mishoe v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Mishoe v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.

133 S.E. 704, 135 S.C. 316, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 93

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 17, 1926

Docket12016

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 704 (Mishoe v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 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

Mishoe v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 133 S.E. 704, 135 S.C. 316, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 93 (S.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

My concurrence in the opinion of the Court, delivered by Mr. Justice Fraser, on the first appeal (124 S. C., 195; 117 S. E.., 217), was limited to a concurrence in the view that there was reversible error in the charge of the Circuit Judge in the particular considered in that opinion. I then stated that I was “not prepared to agree that the verdict should have been directed for the defendant.”

While, as suggested by Mr. Acting Justice Purdy, the testimony tending to rebut any presumption or inference of negligence on the part of the defendant was “fuller” on this trial, I am unable tO' resist the conclusion that under the settled law of this jurisdiction the question of whether such presumption or inference was completely rebutted was for the jury. Ingram v. Davis, 131 S. C., 326; 125 S. E., 920. Mulligan v. Southern Railway, *318 84 S. C., 171, 176, 177; 65 S. E., 1040. Nor under our decisions do I think it may consistently be held as a matter of law that the damages alleged, and which there was some evidence tending to establish, were too remote to afford a basis of recovery. See Pickens v. R. Co., 54 S. C., 511; 32 S. E., 567. Berley v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 83 S. C., 411; 65 S. E., 456.

Three members of the Court having concurred in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Associate Justice Watts concur.

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 Marion.

My concurrence in the opinion of the Court, delivered by Mr. Justice Fraser, on the first appeal (124 S. C., 195; 117 S. E.., 217), was limited to a concurrence in the view that there was reversible error in the charge of the Circuit Judge in the particular considered in that opinion. I then stated that I was “not prepared to agree that the verdict should have been directed for the defendant.”

While, as suggested by Mr. Acting Justice Purdy, the testimony tending to rebut any presumption or inference of negligence on the part of the defendant was “fuller” on this trial, I am unable tO' resist the conclusion that under the settled law of this jurisdiction the question of whether such presumption or inference was completely rebutted was for the jury. Ingram v. Davis, 131 S. C., 326; 125 S. E., 920. Mulligan v. Southern Railway, *318 84 S. C., 171, 176, 177; 65 S. E., 1040. Nor under our decisions do I think it may consistently be held as a matter of law that the damages alleged, and which there was some evidence tending to establish, were too remote to afford a basis of recovery. See Pickens v. R. Co., 54 S. C., 511; 32 S. E., 567. Berley v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 83 S. C., 411; 65 S. E., 456.

Three members of the Court having concurred in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Associate Justice Watts concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 704, 135 S.C. 316, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mishoe-v-atlantic-coast-line-railroad-co-sc-1926.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack