Steele v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

95 S.E. 180, 109 S.C. 104, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 189
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided January 26, 1918·No. 9889·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

*105 This case has been before this Court once before, and will be found in 103 S. C., at page 102. In that case, on page 112, this Court said: “The case is brought here on exceptions, assigning error in the refusal of the motion for non-suit and direction of the verdict, in the charge and refusal to charge one of defendant’s requests and in the refusal of a motion for a new trial, based on the ground that the verdict is excessive.”

All the exceptions in this appeal refer to the insufficiency of the evidence. These questions are so fully considered in the former appeal, that it is unnecessary to consider them again. The testimony is practically the same, and to consider the exceptions in detail, would require a reprint of the former opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Steele v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 95 S.E. 180, 109 S.C. 104, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 189 (S.C. 1918).

95 S.E. 180 (Steele v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crittenden v. Thompson-Walker Co., Inc.
341 S.E.2d 385 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1986)
Nelson v. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.
98 S.E.2d 798 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1957)
Cohen v. Standard Accident Insurance
17 S.E.2d 230 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1941)