Brown v. Spartanburg

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMcIVER
Citation57 S.C. 433,35 S.E. 731
PartiesBROWN v. SPARTANBURG, U. & C. R. CO.
Decision Date17 April 1900

35 S.E. 731
57 S.C. 433

BROWN
v.
SPARTANBURG, U. & C. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 17, 1900.


NEGLIGENCE—PROXIMATE CAUSE—RAILROADS —COUNTRY-ROAD CROSSING—DEFECTIVE BRIDGE.

In an action against a railroad company for injuries to a wagon and team, the petition alleged negligence in maintaining a defective bridge over defendant's track at a country-road crossing, and that by reason of its defective condition the bridge fell, and caused the team to be held on defendant's track, where they were struck by an engine before they could be extricated, and the injuries complained of were, sustained. The proof showed that no injury was done to the wagon and team by the falling of the bridge; but that the injury was inflicted by an engine passing over such track. Held, that the falling of the bridge was not the proximate cause of the injury by reason of the negligence alleged, and a motion for nonsuit was properly granted. Jones, J., dissenting.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Spartanburg county; J. C. Klugh, Judge.

Action by M. M. Brown against the Spartanburg, Union & Columbia Railroad Company. From a Judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hydrick & Wilson, for appellant.

Duncan & Sanders, for respondent

McIVER, C. J. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant company to recover damages done to his wagon and team by the alleged negligence of the said railroad company. The only negligence alleged in the complaint was in failing to keep in repair a bridge across a ditch on the side of the defendant's track at a point where it intersected a "country road, " to enable persons traveling said road to cross the, track of said railroad company; for the complaint, after allegations of negligence in keeping said bridge in proper repair, proceeds as follows: "That on said day at said point while plaintiff's said team of mules and wagon, with its load, were traveling said road, the bridge, by reason of its said rotten and unsafe condition, fell, and caused the said team to be held upon the track of the defendant, in which position, before they could be extricated, they were struck by a passing engine running upon said track, " and the injuries complained of were sustained. But the complaint fails to allege any negligence in running said engine, or any negligence on the part of the engineer in failing to stop his engine in time to avoid the collision with the team on the track. The case came on for trial before his honor, Judge Klugh, and, at the close of the testimony in behalf of the plaintiff, counsel for defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that "the negligence alleged in the complaint, and the negligence proven, is that the bridge fell in, and further proof that the negligence which they have alleged and shown, according to their own witness, Mr. Rowland Quinn, did not cause any injury to the mules and wagon." The circuit judge ruled as follows: "I think the testimony fails to show...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Grieve v. Huber, 1479
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 9, 1928
    ...(Mo.) 229 S.W. 122; Smith Rec'rs. p. 26; there was no authority for receivership during redemption period, Nathen v. Steinmeyer, (S. C.) 35 S.E. 731; the application was not made in a pending action and is, therefore, invalid, Jones (7th Ed.) Sec. 1526; Anderson v. Matthews, 8 Wyo. 513; Hig......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...Fell v. Railroad Co., 33 S. C. 198, 11 S. E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S. C. 278, 22 S. E. 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S. C. 435, 35 S. E. 731; Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P. 665, 59 L. R. A. 209; Spires v. Railroad Co., 4......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Farmer, 824.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 4, 1909
    ...of negligence, the plaintiff is restricted to proofs of such acts of negligence.' In the case of Brown v. Spartanburg U. & C.R.R. Co., 57 S.C. 433, 35 S.E. 732, the court, in discussing this question, said: 'It seems to us that the ruling of the circuit judge is fully sustained by our own c......
  • Sutton v. Southern Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1909
    ...(Fell v. Railroad Co., 33 S. C. 19S, 11 S. E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S. C. 278, 22 S. E. 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S. C. 435, 35 S. E. 731). So, when a complaint contains allegations of specific acts of negligence and also general allegations of negligence, the general allegation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Grieve v. Huber, 1479
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 9, 1928
    ...(Mo.) 229 S.W. 122; Smith Rec'rs. p. 26; there was no authority for receivership during redemption period, Nathen v. Steinmeyer, (S. C.) 35 S.E. 731; the application was not made in a pending action and is, therefore, invalid, Jones (7th Ed.) Sec. 1526; Anderson v. Matthews, 8 Wyo. 513; Hig......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...Fell v. Railroad Co., 33 S. C. 198, 11 S. E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S. C. 278, 22 S. E. 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S. C. 435, 35 S. E. 731; Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P. 665, 59 L. R. A. 209; Spires v. Railroad Co., 4......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Farmer, 824.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 4, 1909
    ...of negligence, the plaintiff is restricted to proofs of such acts of negligence.' In the case of Brown v. Spartanburg U. & C.R.R. Co., 57 S.C. 433, 35 S.E. 732, the court, in discussing this question, said: 'It seems to us that the ruling of the circuit judge is fully sustained by our own c......
  • Sutton v. Southern Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1909
    ...(Fell v. Railroad Co., 33 S. C. 19S, 11 S. E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S. C. 278, 22 S. E. 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S. C. 435, 35 S. E. 731). So, when a complaint contains allegations of specific acts of negligence and also general allegations of negligence, the general allegation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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