Givens v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 August 1915 |
| Docket Number | 9169. |
| Citation | 86 S.E. 24,102 S.C. 1 |
| Parties | GIVENS v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; C. M. Efird Special Judge.
Action by J. M. Givens against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.
J Harry Foster, of Rock Hill, for appellant.
W. W Lewis, of Yorkville, and Glenn & Glenn, of Chester, for respondent.
This was an action to recover the alleged value of $350 for alleged loss of household goods by defendant shipped over its road by the plaintiff. The case was heard before Special Judge C. M. Efird and a jury in December, 1914, for York county, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $285.40. On motion of defendant his honor granted a new trial and set the verdict aside. From this order plaintiff appeals, and alleges error on the part of his honor.
This court will not sustain an appeal from an order granting a new trial, unless it can give judgment absolute; but the court willl consider an appeal from an order granting a new trial, where the order is based on an error of law. Daughty v. Railway Co., 92 S.C. 368, 75 S.E. 553.
The plaintiff sued to recover $350, the value of the shipment of goods. The defendant's answer was a general denial, and contended that, the goods having arrived, the plaintiff could not refuse to accept them, and could only recover damages by way of delay of shipment, and that, as plaintiff had not sued for a delayed shipment, he could not recover. Plaintiff contended that the defendant was estopped from attempting to deliver the goods, since the defendant had assured the plaintiff that the goods were lost and could not be delivered, and that in consequence of this statement and conduct on the part of the defendant the plaintiff was misled to his prejudice, and had to purchase a new outfit of household goods, and had no need for the goods represented to have been lost. The court ruled as incompetent evidence that the plaintiff had purchased a new outfit of goods, and refused to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint, and allege that in consequence of the statement made to him by defendant's agent he purchased new goods. The court took the view, in ordering a new trial, that there was no evidence upon which to base a recovery by the plaintiff, as there was no evidence on the part of the plaintiff that he had in any manner been misled by the conduct of the defendant, or any evidence tending to show estoppel on the part of defendant upon which plaintiff could rely. Under the rulings of his honor in excluding the evidence offered, there was no evidence sufficient to base the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury are bound by the rulings of the judge, and are to take the law from him, whether he is right or not; and unless there is sufficient evidence before the jury to sustain the verdict, it is the duty of the judge to set the verdict aside, and where the trial judge is satisfied, through any error on his part, he has admitted or excluded any evidence that was harmful and prejudicial to either side, and was calculated to influence a jury in arriving at the verdict rendered, and the exclusion or admission of the evidence might have caused a...
To continue reading
Request your trial