Hawes v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1906 |
| Parties | HAWES v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Fairfield County; Gage Judge.
Action by John L. Hawes against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment of the circuit court affirming the judgment of the magistrate for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. E McDonald, for appellant. Ragsdale & Dixon, for respondent.
This appeal is from the judgment of the circuit court, affirming the judgment of a magistrate's court in favor of plaintiff against defendant for the sum of $52.66, including $2.66, the value of the goods lost in shipment, and $50, the statutory penalty for failure to adjust and pay said claim within 90 days, as prescribed in the Acts of 1903, 24 St. at Large, p. 81. The exceptions before this court raise two questions: (1) Whether as matter of law the statement of the claim as filed with the defendant sufficiently complied with the requirement of the statute so as to entitle claimant to the statutory penalty for failure to adjust and pay the same. (2) Whether as matter of law the defendant had the right to demand the surrender of the freight bill and bill of lading before paying the claim.
The claim was filed with defendant company in this form " When this claim was filed with defendant's agent at Winnsboro, S. C., he wrote to the claimant this note: "Attach freight bill and bill of lading and I will pay you." The plaintiff refused to comply with that request and the claim was not paid. The agent testified that the pratice of the railway company was to demand the freight bill, invoice, and original bill of lading before payment of the claim, to protect against bogus claims.
The judgment of the circuit court concludes any inquiry as to the justness and correctness of the claim. We merely consider whether the claim as presented complied with the requirement of the statute. It is contended that the claim (1) should have been signed or attested by the claimant; (2) should have stated whether it was for loss of property or damage to property; (3) should have been accompanied by affidavit or other proof of its validity. The statute does not prescribe the form in which the claim shall be presented, nor that it shall be duly attested, nor that it shall be accompanied with proof of its validity, and this court will not venture to interpolate words into the statute. In the absence of specific regulation of the form in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victor Fertilizer Co. v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... provision is all that is needed. If the claim is filed within ... time and gives the carrier reasonable notice of the character ... of the demand, it is sufficient. Goldstein v. Southern ... Ry. Co., 80 S.C. 522, 61 S.E. 1007; Watts v ... Southern R. Co., 139 S.C. 516, 138 S.E. 290; Hawes ... v. Southern Ry. Co., 73 S.C. 274, 53 S.E. 285; 13 ... C.J.S., Carriers, § 239, page 480 ... In our ... opinion, it is incorrect to say that the three claims were ... not properly filed. The appellants were given full notice ... that the respondent claimed a loss of ... ...
-
King v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... precedent to recovery of the penalty unless there is a waiver ... of strict compliance with the statute. Brown v. Southern ... Ry., 71 S.C. 274, 51 S.E. 151; Hawes v ... Railroad, 73 S.C. 274, 53 S.E. 285; Walker v. So. R ... R. Co., 76 S.C. 308, 56 S.E. 952; ... ...
-
Goldstein v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... this statute. There is no form prescribed by the statute ... setting out how the claim should be written. The plaintiff ... showed to the agent exactly how his loss of $22.85 occurred ... [80 S.C. 524] and what particulars made up said claim ... Hawes v. Southern Railway Co., 73 S.C. 274, 53 S.E ... 285. The circuit judge was therefore not in error, and these ... exceptions must be overruled ... "(3) ... Because his honor erred in reversing the judgment of the ... magistrate on other grounds than those raised by the ... ...