57 S.E. 1101 (S.C. 1907), Bradley v. Northwestern R. Co.

Citation57 S.E. 1101, 77 S.C. 317
Opinion JudgeGARY, A. J.
Party NameBRADLEY v. NORTHWESTERN R. CO.
AttorneyLee & Moise, for appellant. Jennings & Manning, for respondent.
Case DateJuly 10, 1907
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

Page 1101

57 S.E. 1101 (S.C. 1907)

77 S.C. 317

BRADLEY

v.

NORTHWESTERN R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 10, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; Hydrick, Judge.

Action by T. M. Bradley against the Northwestern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff before a magistrate was affirmed in the circuit court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lee & Moise, for appellant. Jennings & Manning, for respondent.

GARY, A. J.

This action was commenced before a magistrate to recover $3, the value of a box of snuff lost in transportation, and a penalty of $50 for defendant's failure to adjust and pay said claim. The facts out

Page 1102

of which the controversy arose were as follows: The plaintiff purchased 14 boxes of snuff from a party in New Jersey, who delivered it to the Pennsylvania Railroad System to be transported to Borden, S. C., a station on defendant's line of road, and received from said system the following bill of lading: "[77 S.C. 318] Helmetta, N. J., Oct. 14, 1904. By Pa. R. R. System. Consignee, T. M. Bradley, Borden, S.C. A. C. L. Via 14 1-2 Snuff 155." Thirteen of said boxes were delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant, but the other box has not been delivered. The magistrate rendered judgment for the amount claimed, whereupon the defendant appealed to the circuit court.

His honor Judge Hydrick made the following order: "This case came up on appeal from the court of magistrate upon several exceptions. After hearing Messrs. Lee & Moise for the defendant appellant and L. D. Jennings for plaintiff respondent, and after careful consideration of the whole case, I find as a matter of fact that the greater portion of the goods, of which a portion was alleged to have been lost, was actually received by the defendant, and I hold as a matter of law that the presumption is that all of said goods were received by the defendant, and that a portion having been received by the defendant company, as is shown by the evidence in the case, the burden was then on the defendant to remove such presumption, and I find as a matter of fact from the testimony that the defendant did not remove such presumption, and, the plaintiff having complied with the law in every respect, I find from the testimony that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • 58 S.E. 983 (S.C. 1907), Venning v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 31, 1907
    ...loss of a part of a car load of goods in Walker v. Railway Co., 76 S.C. 308, 56 S.E. 952, and in Bradley v. Railway Co. (recently filed) 57 S.E. 1101, it was held to extend to the loss of a part of several articles shipped under one bill of lading. Applying this last case, the defendant's d......
  • 655 F.Supp. 318 (D.D.C. 1987), C. A. 86-1787, Public Citizen v. Burke
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • March 6, 1987
    ...veto provision of the Act unconstitutional consistent with Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 S.Ct. 317 (1983), but held that provision severable from the remainder of the Act. Although the veto provision was held severable Judge Hogan held th......
  • 71 S.E. 989 (S.C. 1911), Smith v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 31, 1911
    ...arose that defendant received the entire shipment. Walker v. Railway, 76 S.C. 308, 56 S.E. 952; Bradley v. Railroad Co., 77 S.C. 317, 57 S.E. 1101. But the presumption may be rebutted. Bradley v. Railway, supra; McMeekin v. Railway, 85 S.C. 381, 67 S.E. 745. Defendant undertook to rebut it,......
  • 67 S.E. 745 (S.C. 1910), McMeekin v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 30, 1910
    ...received a portion of a single shipment is presumed to have received the entire shipment. Bradley v. Northwestern R. R. Co., 77 S.C. 317, 57 S.E. 1101. But this presumption is eliminated in this case by the finding that the evidence of defendant's agent to the contrary was true. The bill of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • 58 S.E. 983 (S.C. 1907), Venning v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 31, 1907
    ...loss of a part of a car load of goods in Walker v. Railway Co., 76 S.C. 308, 56 S.E. 952, and in Bradley v. Railway Co. (recently filed) 57 S.E. 1101, it was held to extend to the loss of a part of several articles shipped under one bill of lading. Applying this last case, the defendant's d......
  • 655 F.Supp. 318 (D.D.C. 1987), C. A. 86-1787, Public Citizen v. Burke
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • March 6, 1987
    ...veto provision of the Act unconstitutional consistent with Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 S.Ct. 317 (1983), but held that provision severable from the remainder of the Act. Although the veto provision was held severable Judge Hogan held th......
  • 71 S.E. 989 (S.C. 1911), Smith v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 31, 1911
    ...arose that defendant received the entire shipment. Walker v. Railway, 76 S.C. 308, 56 S.E. 952; Bradley v. Railroad Co., 77 S.C. 317, 57 S.E. 1101. But the presumption may be rebutted. Bradley v. Railway, supra; McMeekin v. Railway, 85 S.C. 381, 67 S.E. 745. Defendant undertook to rebut it,......
  • 67 S.E. 745 (S.C. 1910), McMeekin v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 30, 1910
    ...received a portion of a single shipment is presumed to have received the entire shipment. Bradley v. Northwestern R. R. Co., 77 S.C. 317, 57 S.E. 1101. But this presumption is eliminated in this case by the finding that the evidence of defendant's agent to the contrary was true. The bill of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results