Ashe v. Southern Ry. Co.

Decision Date07 July 1916
Docket Number9447.
Citation89 S.E. 482,104 S.C. 414
PartiesASHE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lancaster County; H. F Rice, Judge.

Action by W. N. Ashe against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

See also, 100 S.C. 187, 84 S.E. 716.

McDonald & McDonald, of Winnsboro, and B. L. Abney, of Columbia, for appellant.

Dunlap & Dunlap and J. Harry Foster, all of Rock Hill, for respondent.

FRASER J.

This is an action for damages for the unlawful ejectment of a passenger. The respondent states his case as follows:

"The plaintiff on February 4, 1913, went to the station of the defendant, at Rock Hill, S. C., to take the passenger train due to arrive there at about 5:50 a. m. There was at that time in progress, at Columbia, S. C., the National Corn Show Exposition. The plaintiff lives at Van Wyck, in the adjoining county of Lancaster, but came over to Rock Hill with some friends, the night before in order to take this early morning train, so that they might have the entire day to attend the Corn Show. The plaintiff, with his friends arrived at the station some time before the train was scheduled to arrive. The defendant had two trains scheduled to arrive at Rock Hill about the same time. One was a through train, the other a local between Charlotte, N. C., and Columbia, S.C. The plaintiff and his party wanted to take passage on the through train. It was earlier, made better time, and arrived several hours in Columbia in advance of the local train. The defendant, by posters, circulars, advertisements, and methods usual to advise the public of excursion rates, had advised the public of reduced rates on account of the Corn Show, and that these excursion rates were good on both of these trains. The excursion tickets were for the round trip, and also attached to the ticket was an admission card to the Corn Show. The plaintiff, and others, made repeated efforts to secure a ticket, the excursion ticket, at the office window some time in advance of the arrival of this through train; but the ticket agent was not present, and did not arrive until this through train blew the station signals. Then the plaintiff, with some 50 other passengers, tried to purchase tickets, but the agent did not then have time to issue tickets to but a few present, and the plaintiff gave a friend, Mr. John A. Black, $20 and asked him to purchase five tickets, while he would go and advise the conductor of the conditions, and have him hold the train until the passengers could get tickets. The plaintiff stated to the conductor the situation, and asked him to delay the train, but the conductor, with characteristic politeness and consideration, ordered the train to start, whereupon the plaintiff got aboard the train. The ticket inspector and conductor demanded that the plaintiff produce a ticket. The plaintiff stated that he was unable to get a ticket, due to the failure of the agent to come to the station in time to sell him a ticket, and tendered to the conductor the excursion rate of fare, and demanded that he be accepted as a passenger, and carried to Columbia and returned. (Italics ours.) The conductor and the ticket inspector demanded
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Green v. Atlanta & C. A. L. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Julio 1928
    ...... . .          The. complaint sets out that, prior to and on February 27, 1922,. the plaintiff was employed by the defendant Southern Railway. Company as a yard conductor, and was placed at work in its. yards at Hayne on the line of the defendant Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line ... granted. Crews v. Sweet, 125 S.C. 303, 118 S.E. 613,. 29 A. L. R. 43; Green v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., . 136 S.C. 337, 134 S.E. 385; Ashe v. Southern R. Co., . 104 S.C. 414, 89 S.E. 482; Templeton v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co., 117 S.C. 44, 108 S.E. 363. And, where more. than one ......
  • Hall v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 6 Octubre 1931
    ......Boston, etc., R. Co. 179 Mass. 52, 60 N.E. 486; Hauk v. New York, etc., R. Co., 34. A.D. 434, 54 N.Y.S. 248; Benson v. Manhattan R. Co., . 31 Misc. 723, 65 N.Y.S. 271. Since under the well-recognized. rule ( Hutchison v. Southern Railway Company, 109. S.C. 94, 95 S.E. 181, Ashe v. Southern Railway. Company, 104 S.C. 414, 89 S.E. 482) it is the duty of. the court, in considering whether a motion for a direction of. a verdict should be granted, to consider the evidence in the. light most favorable to the plaintiff, for the purpose of. this appeal it must be conceded ......
  • Leitner v. Columbia Ry., Gas & Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Mayo 1928
    ...... regard to conflict raised by defendant's evidence, is. [are] to be considered.". . .          In. Ashe v. Railway Co., 104 S.C. 414, 89 S.E. 482, we. find (quoting syllabus):. . . "On defendant's motions for a nonsuit and for a. directed ... appeared to him that he was going to do so.". . .          The. court cites the case of Cable Piano Co. v. Southern R. Co., 94 S.C. 143, 77 S.E. 868, and quotes with approval. from that case:. . . "As there was nothing to indicate that the driver of the. ......

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