88 S.E. 297 (S.C. 1916), 9345, Webb v. Southern Ry. Co.

Docket Nº:9345.
Citation:88 S.E. 297, 104 S.C. 89
Opinion Judge:WATTS, J.
Attorney:Cothran, Dean & Cothran, of Greenville, for appellant. J. R. Martin and J. C. Henry, both of Greenville, for respondent.
Case Date:March 18, 1916
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 297

88 S.E. 297 (S.C. 1916)

104 S.C. 89




No. 9345.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 18, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; M. F. Ansel, Special Judge.

Action by Ella Webb against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Page 298

Cothran, Dean & Cothran, of Greenville, for appellant.

J. R. Martin and J. C. Henry, both of Greenville, for respondent.


Will Webb was the minor son of the plaintiff, and while in the employment of the defendant in December 8, 1913, he having been employed by the agent of the defendant at Greenville, S. C., on December 7, 1913, and carried to Charlotte, N. C., upon transportation furnished by the defendant was struck by the passenger train of the defendant. Will Webb had been directed to go to a shanty car about one mile from the station. It was dark, and in going there he was struck and seriously injured, losing one leg.

[104 S.C. 92] Suits were brought by Will Webb by his guardian ad litem, and one by his mother, Ella Webb, each for $3,000. The action by Ella Webb was begun on November 19, 1914. The action by Will Webb was for damages on account of personal injuries. That of Ella Webb, as by her contended, is for abduction of her minor son. The cases came on for trial before Hon. Martin F. Ansel, Special Judge, and a jury at the June, 1915, term of court for Greenville county, and by agreement the two cases were heard together. At the conclusion of the testimony the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict in each case on the grounds set out in the record. The motion was granted in the case of Will Webb by his guardian ad litem, and from that there is no appeal.

The motion in the case of Ella Webb was refused, the court holding that the complaint stated a cause of action for abduction of a minor child, and consequent loss of service, and this case was submitted to a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $250 actual damages and $250 punitive damages. Defendant moved for a new trial on the minutes, which was refused. When this motion was refused, defendant moved for a nonsuit in the Ella Webb Case as to the cause of action based on loss of service, upon the ground that the presiding judge had practically granted such motion in his charge to the jury in withdrawing from them consideration of that cause of action. This motion was refused, in an order filed by the judge stating, in substance, what he had done in construing the complaint in his charge to the jury practically amounted to a nonsuit as to the cause of action that he withdrew from the jury.

After entry of judgment defendant appealed and seeks reversal. Fourteen exceptions were filed, and by them the following questions were raised: (1) That...

To continue reading