Byrd v. State Highway Department

• Decision Date: 12 January 1931
• Docket Number: 13054.
• Citation: 156 S.E. 454,159 S.C. 181
• Parties: BYRD v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

156 S.E. 454

159 S.C. 181

BYRD v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

No. 13054.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 12, 1931

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Williamsburg County; John S. Wilson, Judge.

Action by S. O. Byrd against the State Highway Department, a body corporate, created and existing by and under the Acts of the General Assembly. From an order refusing a motion of defendant to consolidate for trial four separate cases brought against it by plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

John M Daniel, Atty. Gen., Cordie Page and J. Ivey Humphrey, Asst Attys. Gen., and Lee & Shular, of Kingstree, for appellant.

Hinds & Meadors, of Kingstree, for respondent.

STABLER J.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge John S. Wilson, refusing a motion made by defendant to consolidate for trial four cases brought against it by plaintiff in the court of common pleas for Williamsburg county.

In one of the actions plaintiff alleges that he owns a tract of 63 3/4 acres of land, adjacent to and immediately west of the state highway between Lake City and Kingstree, in Williamsburg county; that the land is located between Smith's Swamp on the north and Little Swamp on the south both swamps being natural water courses running from west to east across the state highway, which extends practically north and south; that, in the latter part of 1927 and the early part of 1928, defendant, in hard-surfacing the highway and in repairing it and raising its grade for that purpose, negligently constructed and repaired it in such way as to leave totally insufficient openings in Smith's Swamp and Little Swamp to permit the flow of the amount of water which naturally flows through and along these swamps, and negligently failed to leave any openings whatever under the highway between the swamps for the water to pass through; that, when the highway was being constructed, repaired, and hard-surfaced, notice of these defects was given to defendant; that, by reason of the acts of negligence referred to, water was obstructed and caused to back and stand on plaintiff's land during the year 1928, and especially in the months of February and September, at which last-mentioned time the entire tract was submerged and overflowed and remained so for practically a week, thereby causing the land, buildings, orchards, and other improvements thereon, to become wet, sobbed, sour, unproductive, etc., to plaintiff's damage in an amount in excess of $1,500.

In the second action judgment is sought against defendant for $1,455, the value of plaintiff's interest in certain crops of cotton, corn, pea vine, hay, potatoes, ribbon cane, and vegetables, planted and growing on the same tract of land, and destroyed in September, 1928, as a result of the same acts of negligence in hard-surfacing and repairing the same highway at the same time.

In the third action judgment is sought against defendant for $325, the amount of damage sustained by plaintiff in September, 1928, through injury to his 1927 corn and his seed cotton, oats, hay, machinery, and tools stored in the barns or houses on the same tract of land, as a result of the same acts of negligence in hard-surfacing and repairing the same highway at the same time.

In the fourth action judgment is sought against defendant for $70, the value of plaintiff's interest in 3 acres of peas planted and growing on the same tract of land and destroyed in February, 1928, as a result of the same acts of negligence in hard-surfacing and repairing the same highway at the same time.

In due time defendant filed...