Croft v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1909
• Citation: 65 S.E. 216,83 S.C. 232
• Parties: CROFT v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

65 S.E. 216

83 S.C. 232

CROFT v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 20, 1909

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Geo. W Gage, Judge.

Action by Lizzie Croft, as administratrix of the estate of Arthur Altee, deceased, against the Southern Cotton Oil Company.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Reversed and remanded.

De Pass & De Pass, for appellant.Mordecai & Gadsden, Rutledge & Hagood, and J. S. Miller, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

The following statement appears in the record: "This action was commenced in the court of common pleas by service of summons and complaint on or about the 23d day of April, 1907, for recovery of damages for the negligent and wrongful acts of the defendant, causing the death of plaintiff's intestate and son, Arthur Altee, for the sum of $10,000.The case came up for trial at the October term of court, 1908, before the Honorable George W. Gage, presiding judge, and a jury.While the plaintiff was proving her case and during the examination of one of the plaintiff's witnesses, the court remarked as follows: "The Court The first witness in this case testified to a fact which raises so serious a question in my mind, I don't think we need be consuming the time of the court until I am satisfied about that.We might as well settle that before we go on with the testimony.On that I will hear Mr. De Pass."After argument of this question by counsel, in which a certified copy of Acts 1906, p. 156, No. 95, was brought to the attention of his honor, Judge Gage, and placed in evidence, his honor held that the third section of said act was unconstitutional, because not so expressed in the title of the act, as required by the Constitution; and that Lord Campbell's act alone, or in connection with sections 1and2 of the act of 1906 (No. 95), would not give plaintiff the right to bring this action.Whereupon his honor directed a verdict for the defendant.This appeal comes up from said rulings and direction of the verdict and judgment thereon.

The act in question is entitled: "An act to provide for an illegitimate child, to inherit from its mother, and the mother from her illegitimate child."And its provisions are as follows:

"That any illegitimate child or children, whose mother shall die intestate, possessed of any real or personal property shall be, so far as said property is concerned, an heir or heirs at law as to such property, notwithstanding any law or usage to the contrary.

"That whenever any illegitimate child shall die in this State, leaving property, real or personal, the mother of such child shall have the same right to inherit from such child, as she would have if said child had been legitimate.

"That in event of the death of such illegitimate child, or the mother of such illegitimate child, by the wrongful or negligent act of another, such illegitimate child, or the mother of such illegitimate child, shall have the same rights and remedies, in regard to such wrongful or negligent act, as though such illegitimate child had been born in lawful wedlock."

The...