91 S.E. 325 (S.C. 1917), 9602, Davis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Docket Nº:9602.
Citation:91 S.E. 325, 106 S.C. 351
Opinion Judge:FRASER, J.
Attorney:McNeill & Oliver, of Florence, for appellant. Mitchell & Lynch, of Florence, for respondent.
Case Date:February 10, 1917
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 325

91 S.E. 325 (S.C. 1917)

106 S.C. 351




No. 9602.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 10, 1917

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

         Action by Tony Davis against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for the plaintiff in the circuit [106 S.C. 352] court on appeal from a magistrate's court, and defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.

         McNeill & Oliver, of Florence, for appellant.

         Mitchell & Lynch, of Florence, for respondent.

         FRASER, J.

         The appellant states his case as follows:

"This was an action brought by Tony Davis in a magistrate's court to recover from Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company certain wages due to him as laborer for said company. The defendant admitted the indebtedness, but set up by way of defense that the reason for its not paying such wages to the plaintiff was that one W. G. Roscoe had demanded payment to him of the money by virtue of a power of attorney apparently given to him by the plaintiff and which authorized him to demand and receive such wages of the defendant; the defendant in the meantime, after service of the complaint, having served upon the said Roscoe a notice to come in and defend the suit or take the steps necessary to establish the validity of his power of attorney, or that such judgment as should be recovered by the plaintiff would be pleaded in bar of any action that he might thereafter bring to recover such wages of the defendant, and the defendant asked the direction of the court as to whom such wages should be paid. The plaintiff set up by way of reply that the power of attorney in question conveyed a naked power, revocable at the will of the plaintiff, and that it had been so revoked; that said power of attorney was rendered void and of no effect because two powers of attorney, identical in terms and of the same date, had been given by the plaintiff to the said Roscoe; and, further, that since the said Roscoe had received a part of the plaintiff's wages previously and had then surrendered to the plaintiff one of said powers of attorney, this operated as a revocation of both. The magistrate found for the plaintiff, and upon appeal to the circuit court his honor, Judge S.W. G. Shipp, sustained the magistrate. Within due time notice of appeal to this court was served; one ground only being relied upon[106 S.C. 353].


To continue reading