Bullock v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1909 |
| Parties | BULLOCK v. CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Abbeville County; R. W Memmenger, Judge.
Action by A. G. Bullock against the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Wm. P Greene, for appellant.
Gary & Perryman, for respondent.
This action was commenced in a magistrate's court for the recovery of the value of two dozen steel traps, alleged to have been lost while in the possession of the defendant company, and also the recovery of the statutory penalty of $50 under the act of February 23, 1903 (24 St. at Large, p 81). The judgment of the magistrate for the full amount and penalty was affirmed by the circuit court, overruling defendant's exceptions. These exceptions are renewed in this court.
The bill of lading introduced in evidence was issued to W. R Bullock, and defendant objected to its introduction upon the ground that the complaint was for loss of a consignment to "A. G. Bullock." The plaintiff testified that he had ordered the goods in question shipped to him and paid for them, and that J. P. Jennings, partner of Gambrell Hardware Co., always addressed him as "W. R. Bullock." This was sufficient evidence of identification of plaintiff as the consignee to permit introduction of the bill of lading, without referring to the testimony of defendant's agent as to his tender of the goods to plaintiff.
It appears that the claim was filed with defendant's agent on February 28, 1907, for the value of two dozen steel traps as lost. The goods arrived at their destination and were tendered to plaintiff not later than June 15,1907, but he declined on the ground that he had gone out of business. This action was begun August 15, 1907. There was no testimony that the goods had been damaged. One witness testified The magistrate charged the jury that, if 60 days expired after the filing of the claim before defendant notified plaintiff of the arrival of the goods, they should and for the plaintiff the amount claimed, $7.25, and penalty, $50, for failure to deliver the goods, provided the defendant had been negligent in tracing the goods within the time allowed by law. This charge was erroneous. Notwithstanding the delay, it was the duty of the plaintiff to accept the goods when tendered and rely upon his right to recover of the carrier damages for negligent delay in transportation. Nettles v. Railroad, 7 Rich....
To continue reading
Request your trial