Bagwell v. Liberty Land & Securities Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 13282. |
| Parties | BAGWELL v. LIBERTY LAND & SECURITIES CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Pickens County; J. K Henry, Judge.
Action by Lewis Bagwell against the Liberty Land & Securities Company. From an order refusing a new trial after verdict directed for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Mann & Plyler, of Greenville, and W. C. Mann, of Pickens, for appellant.
Findley & Wyatt, of Pickens, and Hughs & Hughs, of Walhalla, for respondent.
JOHN I COSGROVE, A. A. J.
This is an action for damages growing out of the loss of plaintiff's left hand while operating a shredding machine on a farm owned by defendant. In substance, the complaint charged that plaintiff at the time of his injury was in the employ of defendant operating a machine owned by it; that he was inexperienced; and that defendant was negligent and willful in various particulars respecting the condition and operation of the shredder, as the result of which he suffered the injury complained of.
Defendant denied the employment of plaintiff and also denied that it owned the machine upon which he was injured. Subject to these denials, it further pleaded the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
On the trial, at the conclusion of all the testimony, Circuit Judge Henry directed a verdict for defendant upon two grounds First, that the relationship of master and servant had not been established; and, second, that, even if established plaintiff assumed the risk of his employment.
A motion for a new trial was made and refused. Upon the motion for a new trial, the circuit judge considered and decided the same questions which had been presented upon the motion of defendant for a directed verdict. This fact is of importance in the light of the condition of the record before us.
On the threshold of our consideration of the exceptions, we are met with a record which fails to show that a judgment was entered on the verdict found for defendant. In fact appellant states that his appeal is from "the judge's direction of a verdict." The question of jurisdiction is apparent. There can be no appeal merely from a verdict. Durst v. Southern Railway Co. (S. C.) 159 S.E. 844. Counsel for both sides, however, have argued the appeal as one from the order refusing a new trial--the only matter of finality in the record. No motion has been made to dismiss. In the interest of justice we shall pass by this technical question of procedure and consider the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial