Waites v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Waites v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

189 S.E. 355, 182 S.C. 347, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 58

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 4, 1937

Docket14405

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.E. 355 (Waites v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees) 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

Waites v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 189 S.E. 355, 182 S.C. 347, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 58 (S.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Baker.

This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal resulted in this Court remanding the case for a new trial for the reason that inadmissible and prejudicial testimony had been allowed. See Waites v. Brotherhood, 181 S. C., 215, 186 S. E., 276.

On the second trial, again resulting in a verdict for plaintiff-respondent, and from which this appeal is had, the testimony and exhibits are the same, with the exceptions: The inadmissible testimony is absent, and the witness, C. B. Smith, testified he had never instructed the members of appellant that they could pay their dues other than as provided in the Constitution and by-laws of appellant, and retain the benefits provided; and that, when he testified in the first trial that the dues could be paid at any time within the quarter without the member losing any accrued rights, and that he had given out this information to *349 the membership generally, such testimony was untrue; that he was confused, excited, and mixed up at the first trial.

Respondent put in evidence the pertinent portion of the testimony of the witness Smith on the first trial.

The sole point involved in this appeal: Refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant on the evidence and under the terms of the by-laws governing the contract between the parties.

“The rule is generally recognized that on a motion for a directed verdict the evidence must beconsidered most favorably to the opponent of that motion, and that the jury may properly pass on inferences from determined facts as well as disputed facts, and contradictions in the testimony of a witness as well as his credibility.” Tyler v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 177 S. C., 454, 181 S. E., 650, 651. Waites v. Brotherhood, supra, makes further discussion unnecessary.

Affirmed.

Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham and FishburnE 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 Baker.

This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal resulted in this Court remanding the case for a new trial for the reason that inadmissible and prejudicial testimony had been allowed. See Waites v. Brotherhood, 181 S. C., 215, 186 S. E., 276.

On the second trial, again resulting in a verdict for plaintiff-respondent, and from which this appeal is had, the testimony and exhibits are the same, with the exceptions: The inadmissible testimony is absent, and the witness, C. B. Smith, testified he had never instructed the members of appellant that they could pay their dues other than as provided in the Constitution and by-laws of appellant, and retain the benefits provided; and that, when he testified in the first trial that the dues could be paid at any time within the quarter without the member losing any accrued rights, and that he had given out this information to *349 the membership generally, such testimony was untrue; that he was confused, excited, and mixed up at the first trial.

Respondent put in evidence the pertinent portion of the testimony of the witness Smith on the first trial.

The sole point involved in this appeal: Refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant on the evidence and under the terms of the by-laws governing the contract between the parties.

“The rule is generally recognized that on a motion for a directed verdict the evidence must beconsidered most favorably to the opponent of that motion, and that the jury may properly pass on inferences from determined facts as well as disputed facts, and contradictions in the testimony of a witness as well as his credibility.” Tyler v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 177 S. C., 454, 181 S. E., 650, 651. Waites v. Brotherhood, supra, makes further discussion unnecessary.

Affirmed.

Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham and FishburnE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 355, 182 S.C. 347, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waites-v-brotherhood-of-maintenance-of-way-employees-sc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack