Stukes v. Southern Express Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1914
• Citation: 80 S.E. 612,96 S.C. 383
• Parties: STUKES v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. BLANDING v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

80 S.E. 612

96 S.C. 383

STUKES v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.

BLANDING v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 13, 1914

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Clarendon County; Thos. S Sease, Judge.

Action by Sam Stukes and action by Peter Blanding against the Southern Express Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Purdy & O'Bryan, of Manning, for appellant.

J. J Cantey, of Summerton, for respondents.

WATTS J.

These two cases were for the purpose of recovering the value of a case of whisky, each of which was shipped from Jacksonville Fla., to plaintiffs, delivered by the shipper to defendant company, and for failure to deliver the same to the plaintiffs, and for the penalty of $50 in each case for failure to adjust said claims within 40 days after the claims had been filed with the agent of the defendant. The cases were tried together before the magistrate, who decided them in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court, and the circuit court reversed the judgment of magistrate and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs in each case for the amounts sued for, and for $50 penalty. From judgment of circuit court, defendant appealed.

Exceptions 1 and 2 are overruled, as the questions raised by these exceptions are conclusively decided in the recent cases of Varnville Furniture Co. v. C. & W. C. Railroad Co., 79 S.E. 700, and Du Pre v. C., N. & L. Railroad Co., 79 S.E. 310.

As to exceptions 3, 4, and 5, which challenge the correctness of his honor's finding, they are overruled, as there is abundant evidence to sustain him. The evidence shows beyond doubt that the whisky was ordered for personal use and lawful purposes. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the plaintiffs intended it for any illegal or unlawful purpose whatsoever, and under the law of the land a person can order and keep in possession whisky for personal use so long as he does not attempt to use it unlawfully, by selling it, etc. A mere suspicion that it is intended for unlawful purpose is not sufficient to withhold or seize his property; there must be evidence of some sort to support the charge that it is for unlawful use. In this case the agent of defendant refused upon demand to deliver the whisky to plaintiffs and sent it back to Florida, and made no effort to deliver it to plaintiffs until after suit was commenced. The evidence shows a willful...