Porter v. Davis, (No. 10780.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGARY
Citation110 S.E. 121
PartiesPORTER . v. DAVIS, Agent, et al.
Decision Date19 December 1921
Docket Number(No. 10780.)

110 S.E. 121

PORTER .
v.
DAVIS, Agent, et al.

(No. 10780.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 19, 1921.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; Jas. E. Peurifoy, Judge.

Action by Harriet N. Porter against James C. Davis, as Agent of the United States of America and Director General of Railroads, and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Barron, McKay, Frier-son & McCauts, of Columbia, Reynolds & Reynolds, of Sumter, and A. L. Hardee, of Florence, for appellants.

Jennings & Harby and John H. Clifton, both of Sumter, for respondent.

GARY, C. J. The following statement appears in the record:

"This case was begun by service of summons and complaint on the defendants, the 10th day of July, 1919. The action was originally against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and H. M. Tilton, but the complaint was amended before trial by substituting James C. Davis, as Agent of the United States of America and Director General of Railroads, in the place of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. In due course trial was had before Hon. James E. Peurifoy, presiding judge and a jury at the spring term of court of common pleas for Sumter county, April, 1921, and a verdict returned by the jury, 'We find for the plaintiff the sum of sixteen thousand dollars." Motion for new trial was made and refused, and defendants duly served notice of intention to appeal to the Supreme Court of South Carolina from the judgment which was duly entered on said verdict."

The complaint, omitting the first paragraph, which is formal, is as follows:

"(2) That plaintiff was a passenger on train of defendant on or about 24th of November, 1918, when said train was wrecked, and plaintiff was thrown violently from her seat, was cut and bruised, and her hand mashed in such manner that one of her fingers had to be amputated. That her leg was bruised and severely injured causing her much pain, suffering and expense for medical treatment, etc., loss of time from her profession, that pains are no better, and plaintiff is informed and believes that she wdl

[110 S.E. 122]

continue to suffer much pain, expense and loss of time by reason of said injuries.

"(3) That defendant Tilton at time in question was in the employ of the defendant company as section master and in charge of that portion of track where wreck occurred.

"(4) That wreck was caused and the plaintiff injured and damaged because the defendants negligently, willfully and recklessly failed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...of negligence against the carrier, as well as specific acts against the servant. Such also is the case of Porter v. Davis, 118 S. C. 153, 110 S. E. 121. The case at bar, however, contains no general allegation of negligence against the carrier, but the pleader has relied solely upon the spe......
  • Poliakoff v. Shelton, No. 15057.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 8, 1940
    ...Railroad Company, supra. See, also, Sutton v. Southern Railway, 82 S.C. 345, 64 S.E. 401; Porter v. Davis, Director General, 118 S.C. 153, 110 S.E. 121; Home v. Southern Railway, 186 S.C. 525, 197 S.E. 31, 116 A.L.R. 745. The question before us for determination then is: Was there any evide......
  • Kirkpatrick v. Hardeman, (No. 10798.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 19, 1921
    ...or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized." It was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that there was a compliance with the[110 S.E. 121]foregoing requirements on his part, but that there was a memorandum in writing signed by the defendant, or by Ids agent thereunto lawfully author......
3 cases
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...of negligence against the carrier, as well as specific acts against the servant. Such also is the case of Porter v. Davis, 118 S. C. 153, 110 S. E. 121. The case at bar, however, contains no general allegation of negligence against the carrier, but the pleader has relied solely upon the spe......
  • Poliakoff v. Shelton, No. 15057.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 8, 1940
    ...Railroad Company, supra. See, also, Sutton v. Southern Railway, 82 S.C. 345, 64 S.E. 401; Porter v. Davis, Director General, 118 S.C. 153, 110 S.E. 121; Home v. Southern Railway, 186 S.C. 525, 197 S.E. 31, 116 A.L.R. 745. The question before us for determination then is: Was there any evide......
  • Kirkpatrick v. Hardeman, (No. 10798.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 19, 1921
    ...or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized." It was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that there was a compliance with the[110 S.E. 121]foregoing requirements on his part, but that there was a memorandum in writing signed by the defendant, or by Ids agent thereunto lawfully author......

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