Parr v. Spartanburg

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPOPE
Citation20 S.E. 1009,43 S.C. 197
Decision Date19 February 1895
PartiesPARR . v. SPARTANBURG, U. & C. R. CO.

20 S.E. 1009
43 S.C. 197

PARR .
v.
SPARTANBURG, U. & C. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 19, 1895.


Lease or Railroad—Negligence of Lessee's Receiver.

A railroad company which has leased its line to another company is liable for injuries caused in the operation of the road, though it is being operated by receivers appointed for the lessee.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Fairfield county; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by Henry L. Parr against the Spartanburg, Union & Columbia Railroad Company to recover damages for the negligent killing of a mule colt. From an affirmance by the circuit court of a judgment of a trial justice for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. S. Cothran and W. D. Douglass, for appellant.

Ragsdale & Ragsdale, for respondent.

POPE, J. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant before Jos. McMeekin, Esq., a trial justice in and for Fairfield county, in June, 1893, for $95 damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff's mule colt. The defendant denied any liability for the tort, on the ground that it had leased its railroad to the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, which latter company had, under the order of the United States circuit court, been put into the hands of receivers, who were operating such leased road at the time the mule colt was killed. The trial justice overruled the defense, and gave plaintiff his judgment for $95. Thereupon the defendant appealed to the circuit court upon two grounds: First, that it was not liable for any tort while its property was managed by receivers of its lessee; second, that plaintiff had failed to prove ownership of the mule colt. This appeal came to be heard before the Honorable Ernest Gary, as presiding judge, who overruled both grounds of appeal, and affirmed the judgment of the trial justice. From this judgment the defendant now appeals to this court, upon the single ground that it cannot be held liable for this tort, which occurred while its property was in the hands of receivers of its lessee, under the appointment of the United States circuit court.

We have been very much interested by the clear and able argument of the counsel for appellant. He frankly admits that under the authority of the cases of National Bank v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co., 25 S. C. 222, and Harmon v. Railroad Co., 28 S. C. 401, 5 S. E. 835, re-enforced by the case of Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 450, he cannot contend that if the defendant railroad were in the hands of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1947
    ...rel. Bostian v. Ridge, 188 S.W. (2d) 941; Kirkland v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co., 60 S.E. 68; Parr v. Spartanburg U. & C. Ry. Co., 20 S.E. 1009; C., B. & Q.R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, 31 S. Ct. 460, 55 L. Ed. 521; Hahs v. Cape Girardeau & C. Ry. Co., 147 Mo. App. 262, 12......
  • Moorshead v. United Rys. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 22, 1906
    ...§ 366. Harmon v. Railroad, supra, followed National Bank v. Railway, 25 S. C. 225, and was in turn followed by Parr v. Railroad, 43 S. C. 197, 20 S. E. 1009, 49 Am. St. Rep. 826. In Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Hart, 209 Ill. 414, 70 N. E. 654, 66 L. R. A. 75, the rule announced......
  • Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Sheegog's Admr.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • June 20, 1907
    ...Co. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 59, 3 S. W. 457; Chollette v. Railroad Co., 26 Neb. 169, 41 N. W. 1106, 4 L. R. A. 135; Parr v. Railroad Co., 43 S. C. 197, 20 S. E. 1009, 49 Am. St. Rep. 826; Pennsylvania Co. v. Ellett, 132 Ill. 654, 24 N. E. 559; Stephens v. Railroad Co., 36 Iowa, 327; Bower v. Rai......
  • Reed v. Southern Ry.&mdash
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 12, 1906
    ...doctrine is affirmed in the cases of Bank v. Railway, 25 S. C. 216; Bouknight v. Railroad, 41 S. C. 415, 19 S. E. 915; Parr v. Railway, 43 S. C. 197, 20 S. E. 1009, 49 Am. St. Rep. 826; Davis v. Railway, 63 S. C. 370, 41 S. E. 468; Smalley v. Railroad, 73 S. C. 572, 53 S. E. 1000; and Frank......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1947
    ...rel. Bostian v. Ridge, 188 S.W. (2d) 941; Kirkland v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co., 60 S.E. 68; Parr v. Spartanburg U. & C. Ry. Co., 20 S.E. 1009; C., B. & Q.R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, 31 S. Ct. 460, 55 L. Ed. 521; Hahs v. Cape Girardeau & C. Ry. Co., 147 Mo. App. 262, 12......
  • Moorshead v. United Rys. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 22, 1906
    ...§ 366. Harmon v. Railroad, supra, followed National Bank v. Railway, 25 S. C. 225, and was in turn followed by Parr v. Railroad, 43 S. C. 197, 20 S. E. 1009, 49 Am. St. Rep. 826. In Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Hart, 209 Ill. 414, 70 N. E. 654, 66 L. R. A. 75, the rule announced......
  • Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Sheegog's Admr.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • June 20, 1907
    ...Co. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 59, 3 S. W. 457; Chollette v. Railroad Co., 26 Neb. 169, 41 N. W. 1106, 4 L. R. A. 135; Parr v. Railroad Co., 43 S. C. 197, 20 S. E. 1009, 49 Am. St. Rep. 826; Pennsylvania Co. v. Ellett, 132 Ill. 654, 24 N. E. 559; Stephens v. Railroad Co., 36 Iowa, 327; Bower v. Rai......
  • Reed v. Southern Ry.&mdash
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 12, 1906
    ...doctrine is affirmed in the cases of Bank v. Railway, 25 S. C. 216; Bouknight v. Railroad, 41 S. C. 415, 19 S. E. 915; Parr v. Railway, 43 S. C. 197, 20 S. E. 1009, 49 Am. St. Rep. 826; Davis v. Railway, 63 S. C. 370, 41 S. E. 468; Smalley v. Railroad, 73 S. C. 572, 53 S. E. 1000; and Frank......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT