50 S.E. 789 (S.C. 1905), Wesner & White Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R.

Citation:50 S.E. 789, 71 S.C. 211
Opinion Judge:WOODS, J.
Party Name:WESNER & WHITE MFG. CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R.
Attorney:J. T. Barron and Moss & Lide, for appellant. Bowman & Wannamaker and Jas. F. Izlar, for respondent.
Case Date:March 20, 1905
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 789

50 S.E. 789 (S.C. 1905)

71 S.C. 211

WESNER & WHITE MFG. CO.

v.

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 20, 1905

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; Klugh, Judge.

Action by the Wesner & White Manufacturing Company against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. From an order refusing a motion to strike out of the complaint certain allegations, defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. T. Barron and Moss & Lide, for appellant. Bowman & Wannamaker and Jas. F. Izlar, for respondent.

WOODS, J.

In this action plaintiff seeks to recover of the defendant railroad company $1,995 damages for the alleged delay in transporting 270 bundles of wire, and also for the alleged injury caused to the wire during transit. The complaint contains three separate causes of action. After giving due notice to plaintiff, defendant made a motion [71 S.C. 212] before his honor Judge Klugh at his chambers, at Orangeburg, on May 6, 1904, to strike out, as irrelevant and redundant, "so much of paragraph 6 of the second cause of action as alleges that, 'by reason of the damage thereto and the delay in the transportation of said goods by the said carriers and the defendant, the plaintiff was forced to stop or shut its manufacturing enterprise from the 4th to the 20th day of January, A. D. 1904, both inclusive, and to pay five employés or hands for fifteen days at the rate of ninety cents each per day, amounting to the sum of $67.50; to stop the manufacture of bed springs for the same length of time; to suffer the business of the plaintiff to cease and become disorganized, besides being greatly worried and annoyed by said delay, damage, injury, and inconvenience in said transportation caused as aforesaid.' And also, for the same reason, so much of paragraph 4 of the third cause of action as alleges that 'the business of the plaintiff interrupted, the enterprise and manufacture of bed springs stopped, the manufactory of plaintiff compelled to shut down and cease work." D' The motion was refused, and from this ruling defendant appeals.

The judgment of the circuit court will have to be reversed. It is true, the complaint alleges the defendant was "fully cognizant of the fact that the plaintiff's stock of wire was low, and that plaintiff wanted the same at once, and that there was necessity for a hurried shipment." But there is no allegation that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP