67 S.E. 745 (S.C. 1910), McMeekin v. Southern Ry. Co.

Citation67 S.E. 745, 85 S.C. 381
Opinion JudgeWOODS, J.
Party NameMcMEEKIN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
AttorneyMcCants & McCants, for appellant. Ragsdale & Dixon, for respondent.
Case DateMarch 30, 1910
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

Page 745

67 S.E. 745 (S.C. 1910)

85 S.C. 381

McMEEKIN

v.

SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 30, 1910

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Fairfield County; J. C. Klugh, Judge.

Action by John C. McMeekin against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment affirming the judgment of a magistrate in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Page 746

McCants & McCants, for appellant. Ragsdale & Dixon, for respondent.

WOODS, J.

In this action the circuit court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate in favor of the plaintiff, McMeekin, against the defendant, Southern Railway Company, for the value of a part of a shipment of flour and [85 S.C. 382] meal lost in the course of transportation from Estill Springs, Tenn., to Wallaceville, S.C., and for $50 penalty for failure to adjust and pay the claim within the time allowed by the statute. There was evidence tending to prove that the goods were lost before the shipment was delivered to the Southern Railway at Atlanta, and under this evidence the magistrate found as a fact that the goods were never delivered to the Southern Railway Company. This finding of fact was not disturbed by the circuit court.

A connecting carrier which has 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 lading contained the stipulation that "no carrier shall be liable for loss or damage not occurring on its own portion of the route." Such a stipulation was held to be valid in Venning v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 78 S.C. 42, 58 S.E. 983, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1217, 125 Am. St. Rep. 768. Hence the defendant was not liable for goods lost by a connecting carrier. From this finding of fact it also follows that the defendant was not liable for the penalty of $50 under the statute of 1903 (24 St. at Large, 81), which provides for the recovery of a penalty for failure to adjust and pay "for loss or damage to property while in the possession of such common carrier." Venning v. A. C. L. R. R., supra.

The plaintiff could not recover the penalty under section 1710 of the Civil Code, because the bill of lading introduced as the contract of shipment does not provide that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • 92 F.3d 1444 (6th Cir. 1996), 95-5007, United States v. Wall
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • August 15, 1996
    ...travelers" or that derived "a substantial portion of the food" they served from commerce. McClung, 379 U.S. at 298, 85 S.Ct. at 381. After Lopez, therefore, the statutes in Heart of Atlanta and McClung are insulated from facial constitutional challenges because they regulate ......
  • 71 S.E. 989 (S.C. 1911), Smith v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 31, 1911
    ...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, and discharge itself from liability by proving that the car contained only 127 hogs, when received by it, ......
  • 844 F.Supp. 574 (S.D.Cal. 1993), Civ. 92-1370, Pinnock v. International House of Pancakes Franchisee
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Southern District of California
    • November 8, 1993
    ...This obviously discourages travel and obstructs interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating. 379 U.S. at 300, 85 S.Ct. at 381-82. Thus, regardless of Zahedi's individual circumstances, he is subject to Commerce Clause regulation as a member of the restaurant Even aside from......
  • 2 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir. 1993), 92-5641, United States v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • September 15, 1993
    ...serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves ... has moved in commerce.' " Id. 379 U.S. at 298, 85 S.Ct. at 381. In so ruling, despite the absence of "formal findings," the Court relied on the wording of the statute itself, which amounted to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • 92 F.3d 1444 (6th Cir. 1996), 95-5007, United States v. Wall
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • August 15, 1996
    ...travelers" or that derived "a substantial portion of the food" they served from commerce. McClung, 379 U.S. at 298, 85 S.Ct. at 381. After Lopez, therefore, the statutes in Heart of Atlanta and McClung are insulated from facial constitutional challenges because they regulate ......
  • 71 S.E. 989 (S.C. 1911), Smith v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 31, 1911
    ...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, and discharge itself from liability by proving that the car contained only 127 hogs, when received by it, ......
  • 844 F.Supp. 574 (S.D.Cal. 1993), Civ. 92-1370, Pinnock v. International House of Pancakes Franchisee
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Southern District of California
    • November 8, 1993
    ...This obviously discourages travel and obstructs interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating. 379 U.S. at 300, 85 S.Ct. at 381-82. Thus, regardless of Zahedi's individual circumstances, he is subject to Commerce Clause regulation as a member of the restaurant Even aside from......
  • 2 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir. 1993), 92-5641, United States v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • September 15, 1993
    ...serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves ... has moved in commerce.' " Id. 379 U.S. at 298, 85 S.Ct. at 381. In so ruling, despite the absence of "formal findings," the Court relied on the wording of the statute itself, which amounted to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results