Key v. Carolina &. N. W. Ry. Co, (No. 12633.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBLEASE
Citation147 S.E. 625
Docket Number(No. 12633.)
Decision Date05 April 1929
PartiesKEY v. CAROLINA &. N. W. RY. CO.

147 S.E. 625

KEY
v.
CAROLINA &. N. W. RY. CO.

(No. 12633.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 5, 1929.


[147 S.E. 625]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chester County; John S. Wilson, Judge.

Action by F. J. Key against the Carolina & Northwestern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, John A. Marion, of York, and Glenn & MacAulay, of Chester, for appellant.

Hemphill & Hemphill and Gaston, Hamilton & Gaston, all of Chester, for respondent.

BLEASE, J. This is an action for punitive damages, growing out of injuries received by the respondent in a collision of an automobile, in which the respondent was riding, and a train of the defendant at a grade crossing in Chester county. In the trial before his honor, Judge John S. Wilson, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the respondent for both actual and punitive damages. Defendant has appealed to this court on 27 exceptions.

The fourth defense of the answer of the defendant contained the following allegations:

"(1) That on or about March ——, 1926, the plaintiff agreed that if the defendant would pay in full all charges and expenses for doctors, medicine and hospital bills incurred and which should be incurred by or on behalf of the plaintiff in and for the treatment of the injuries sustained by him at the time of the collision referred to in the complaint, while a patient at the Chester Sanitorium, a hospital in the City of Chester, where plaintiff was and had been a patient since the date of his said injuries, he would fully and finally release and discharge the defendant from any and all further liability to him of any character whatsoever on account of the alleged claim for damages which is made the basis of his alleged cause of action herein; that in consideration of plaintiff's said covenant and agreement this defendant, by way of compromise settlement of plaintiff's alleged claim, agreed and contracted to pay the charges and expenses for doctor's medical and hospital bills incurred, and which should be incurred, by and on behalf of the plaintiff at said Chester Sanitorium; and that pursuant thereto this defendant fully performed and executed said agreement on its part by assuming, by and with the consent of the Chester Sanitorium, the payment of the said charges and expenses to said Chester Sanitorium, thereby incurring, and relieving the plaintiff from, liability for the payment to said Chester Sanitorium of doctor's medical and hospital bills in the sum of $2,394.70.

"(2) That defendant pleads the foregoing executed agreement both in bar of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action herein and by way of equitable estoppel against the assertion on the part of the plaintiff of the claim set up in the complaint."

In support of the allegations of the answer set forth, the defendant offered some testimony. Under the view we take of the case, it is not necessary, or proper, to attempt to state that testimony, or the testimony introduced by the plaintiff to refute those al-

[147 S.E. 626]

legations of the answer. To properly consider the appeal, it is only incumbent upon us...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Key v. Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co, No. 13112.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1931
    ...including both actual and punitive damages, resulted. On appeal to this court by the defendant, that judgment was reversed. 150 S. C. 29, 147 S. E. 625. The unanimous opinion of the court at that time, however, sustained the right of the plaintiff to have the case submitted to the jury on i......
  • Ford v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, No. 13405.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1932
    ...111 S. E. 880; Johnson v. A. C. L. Railroad Company, 142 S. C. 125, 140 S. E. 443; Key v. C. & N. W. Railroad Company, 150 S. C. 29, 35, 147 S. E. 625), and that the utterance of Mr. Justice Holmes, who delivered the opinion of the court in the frequently cited case of Baltimore & Ohio Rail......
  • Bishop v. New York Cent. R. Co., No. 4
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 17, 1957
    ...[27 NCCA 126]; Dobson v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co. [223 Mo.App. 812 10 S.W.2d 528], supra; Key v. Carolina & N. W. R. Co., 150 S.C. 29, 35, 147 S.E. 625; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Stanley, 38 Ga.App. 773, 778, 145 S.E. 530. Often the added safeguard will be dubious though the track hap......
  • Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wells, No. 5425.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 21, 1932
    ...S.) 901; 39 C. J., pp. 266 and 267; Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Stanley, 38 Ga. App. 773, 145 S. E. 530; Key v. Ry. Co., 150 S. C. 29, 147 S. E. 625. We will now consider the foregoing rules in the light of this record. It is well settled in this state that a failure of a person approaching......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Key v. Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co, No. 13112.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1931
    ...including both actual and punitive damages, resulted. On appeal to this court by the defendant, that judgment was reversed. 150 S. C. 29, 147 S. E. 625. The unanimous opinion of the court at that time, however, sustained the right of the plaintiff to have the case submitted to the jury on i......
  • Ford v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, No. 13405.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1932
    ...111 S. E. 880; Johnson v. A. C. L. Railroad Company, 142 S. C. 125, 140 S. E. 443; Key v. C. & N. W. Railroad Company, 150 S. C. 29, 35, 147 S. E. 625), and that the utterance of Mr. Justice Holmes, who delivered the opinion of the court in the frequently cited case of Baltimore & Ohio Rail......
  • Bishop v. New York Cent. R. Co., No. 4
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 17, 1957
    ...[27 NCCA 126]; Dobson v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co. [223 Mo.App. 812 10 S.W.2d 528], supra; Key v. Carolina & N. W. R. Co., 150 S.C. 29, 35, 147 S.E. 625; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Stanley, 38 Ga.App. 773, 778, 145 S.E. 530. Often the added safeguard will be dubious though the track hap......
  • Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wells, No. 5425.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 21, 1932
    ...S.) 901; 39 C. J., pp. 266 and 267; Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Stanley, 38 Ga. App. 773, 145 S. E. 530; Key v. Ry. Co., 150 S. C. 29, 147 S. E. 625. We will now consider the foregoing rules in the light of this record. It is well settled in this state that a failure of a person approaching......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT