74 S.E. 41 (S.C. 1912), Holliday Co. v. Raleigh & C.R. Co.

• Citation: 74 S.E. 41, 91 S.C. 51
• Opinion Judge: FRASER, J.
• Party Name: HOLLIDAY CO. v. RALEIGH & C. R. CO.
• Attorney: M. C. Woods, for appellant. Jas. W. Johnson, for respondent.
• Case Date: March 21, 1912
• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 41

74 S.E. 41 (S.C. 1912)

91 S.C. 51

HOLLIDAY CO.

v.

RALEIGH & C. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 21, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marion County; S.W. G. Shipp, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the Holliday Company against the Raleigh & Charleston Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Page 42

M. C. Woods, for appellant. Jas. W. Johnson, for respondent.

FRASER, J.

This is an action for damages to stock.

The plaintiff alleges "that on or about the 12th day of December, A. D. 1906, the plaintiff delivered, or caused to be delivered, to the defendant, through its agent and connecting line, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, at Blackwell, in the now state of Oklahoma, and the defendant received, twenty-nine (29) horses and mules, the property of the plaintiff, which the defendant as a common carrier as aforesaid promised and agreed, in consideration of a reasonable compensation paid, or to be paid it, safely and promptly to carry to Marion, in the county of Marion, and state of South Carolina, and there to deliver the same to the plaintiff." By the fifth paragraph of the complaint the plaintiff alleges "that defendant did not safely and promptly carry and deliver said mules and horses pursuant to said agreement, but, on the contrary. kept said animals on the road for a much longer time than was necessary, and negligently exposed them to the cold and freezing weather, and otherwise neglected them, and as a direct result thereof all of said animals were made sick, and seven of them died almost immediately after they were delivered to plaintiff; that six of said animals died within less than twenty-four hours after the defendant delivered them, and one soon thereafter, and the remainder were greatly damaged from the causes aforesaid." In the seventh paragraph the plaintiff alleges: "That on the 8th day of March, 1907, plaintiff filed with the defendant's agent at Marion, S. C., a claim made out in detail showing said loss, but the defendant has never adjusted nor paid the same, nor any part thereof, nor has the defendant traced said shipment and informed plaintiff [91 S.C. 53]when, where, and by which carrier the said animals were damaged and destroyed, and plaintiff alleges that defendant is responsible for said loss and damage to the extent of $100 on...