Bradley v. Northwestern R. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 July 1907
• Parties: BRADLEY v. NORTHWESTERN R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

57 S.E. 1101

77 S.C. 317

BRADLEY v. NORTHWESTERN R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 10, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; Hydrick Judge.

Action by T. M. Bradley against the Northwestern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff before a magistrate was affirmed in the circuit court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lee & Moise, for appellant. Jennings & Manning, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This action was commenced before a magistrate to recover $3, the value of a box of snuff lost in transportation, and a penalty of $50 for defendant's failure to adjust and pay said claim. The facts out of which the controversy arose were as follows: The plaintiff purchased 14 boxes of snuff from a party in New Jersey, who delivered it to the Pennsylvania Railroad System to be transported to Borden, S. C., a station on defendant's line of road, and received from said system the following bill of lading: " Helmetta, N. J., Oct. 14 1904. By Pa. R. R. System. Consignee, T. M. Bradley, Borden S.C. A. C. L. Via 14 1-2 Snuff 155." Thirteen of said boxes were delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant, but the other box has not been delivered. The magistrate rendered judgment for the amount claimed, whereupon the defendant appealed to the circuit court.

His honor Judge Hydrick made the following order: "This case came up on appeal from the court of magistrate upon several exceptions. After hearing Messrs. Lee & Moise for the defendant appellant and L. D. Jennings for plaintiff respondent, and after careful consideration of the whole case, I find as a matter of fact that the greater portion of the goods, of which a portion was alleged to have been lost was actually received by the defendant, and I hold as a matter of law that the presumption is that all of said goods were received by the defendant, and that a portion having been received by the defendant company, as is shown by the evidence in the case, the burden was then on the defendant to remove such presumption, and I find as a matter of fact from the testimony that the defendant did not remove such presumption, and, the plaintiff having complied with the law in every respect, I find from the testimony that the defendant is liable, and that the judgment of the magistrate ought to be, and is hereby sustained, and the appeal dismissed. Under my view of this case, I do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question of the...