Baughman v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 February 1924
• Docket Number: 11413.
• Citation: 121 S.E. 356,127 S.C. 493
• Parties: BAUGHMAN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

121 S.E. 356

127 S.C. 493

BAUGHMAN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 11413.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 5, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; R. W Memminger, Judge.

Action by L. J. Baughman against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Harley & Blatt, of Barnwell, for appellant.

Ninestein & Baxley, of Blackville, for respondent.

FRASER J.

In order to get a clearer view of the question at issue, some minor matters of detail will be omitted.

The plaintiff shipped a carload of cucumbers to himself to St Paul, Minn., to order notify C. C. Emerson & Co. The plaintiff took the bill of lading to the bank, indorsed the bill of lading in blank, and attached a draft for $210, on C C. Emerson & Co. When the shipment reached St. Paul over the C., B. & Q. Railway, the final carrier, this company notified C. C. Emerson & Co. The cucumbers were "perishable" and the C., B. & Q. Railway Company delivered the car to C C. Emerson & Co. without the bill of lading, but required C. C. Emerson & Co. to give them a check for 125 per cent. of the invoice price. Some 10 days later, C. C. Emerson & Co. paid the draft for $210, secured the bill of lading, and surrendered the bill of lading to the railway company and took up its check, which had been deposited with the railway company. It seems that there had been some previous transactions between the Emerson Company and the plaintiff, on which the Emerson Company claimed a balance. The Emerson Company garnisheed the money in the lands of the St. Paul bank, and the plaintiff lost his money and brought this action against the Southern Railway Company, as the initial carrier, under the federal statute.

The plaintiff claims that the Railway Company breached its contract in that it delivered the car to the Emerson Company without the bill of lading, and it thereby lost its money and is entitled to recover the amount of its loss.

At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a direction of a verdict in its favor, on the ground that there was no evidence of loss to the plaintiff by reason of the premature delivery. This motion was refused. There are several questions made by the exceptions, but, in the view this court takes of this case, only one question need be considered.

I. When there is an action for the breach of a contract, a plaintiff must not only prove the contract and its breach, but damages caused by the breach. To illustrate: A. executes a deed to C and delivers it to B., taking a contract from B. in which B. agrees not to deliver the deed to C. until C. pays to B. the full amount of the purchase money. C. is allowed 10 days in which to pay the money. B. immediately delivers the deed to C. without the money,...