Prescott v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 8950.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFRASER
Citation99 S.C. 422,83 S.E. 781
PartiesPRESCOTT. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
Docket Number(No. 8950.)
Decision Date28 September 1914

83 S.E. 781
99 S.C. 422

PRESCOTT.
v.
SOUTHERN RY. CO.

(No. 8950.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 28, 1914.


Petition for Rehearing Dismissed Dec. 18, 1914.

1. Cabriebs (§ 146*)—Liability fob Fbeight —Issues Involved—Federal Statutes.

Where a carrier moving for a nonsuit of an action against it as a carrier and as a warehouseman, and for the penalty for nonpayment of a loss of freight, on the ground that the evidence showed that the freight had been paid, receipted for, and left in the depot of the car, rier, so that its liability as carrier ceased, and while the court reserved its decision, plaintiff withdrew the causes of action, except the one against the carrier as warehouseman, the question of the liability of the carrier as such under the federal statute did not arise.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 619y2, 631-636; Dec. Dig. § 146.*]

2. Wabehousemen (§ 24*)—Liability—Presumptions.

A warehouseman receiving goods, but failing to return them on demand, must account for their loss, and it is not enough to merely show that a loss was by fire, but he must show the circumstances surrounding the fire.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Warehousemen, Cent. Dig. §§ 11, 48, 49, 51-54; Dec. Dig. § 24.*]

3. Wabehousemen (§ 34*)—Liability—Presumptions.

That the complaint, in an action against a warehouseman for loss of goods, did not allege negligence generally, but stated the particulars of the negligence, did not prevent the applicability of the presumption of negligence, and plaintiff need not prove any of the acts of, negligence specified, and the warehouseman had the burden of showing due care.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Warehousemen, Cent. Dig. §§ 71-85; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Edgefield County; T. H. Spain, Judge.

Action by W. E. Prescott against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

N. George Evans, of Edgefield, and B. L. Abney, of Columbia, for appellant

J. Wm. Thurmond, of Edgefield, for respondent.

FRASER, J. This is an action against the defendant for loss by fire of certain boxes of shoes while in the defendant's possession. Thirteen boxes of shoes were shipped from Petersburg, Va., to the plaintiff at Edgefield, S. C. They arrived in Edgefield on the 23d day of June, 1913. On the following day the plaintiff's agent called at the depot for freight and, on account of the crowded condition of his wagon, took only four boxes....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...permits evidence of specific acts under a general allegation of negligence not objected to. See the cases of Prescott v. Railroad Co., 99 S. C. 422, 83 S. E. 781, where the Sutton Case is specifically referred to as one containing general allegations of negligence against the carrier, as we......
  • Southern Railway Company v. Prescott, No. 358
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1916
    ...show negligence as a basis for recovery. Judgment upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 99 S. C. 422, 83 S. E. 781. With respect to the Federal question, the court said: 'The defendant claims that, inasmuch as this is an interstate shipment......
  • Arkwright Mills v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., No. 16407
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 12, 1950
    ...question, but it is settled contrary to the contention of the appellant in this state by the case of Prescott v. Southern Railway Co., 99 S.C. 422, 83 S.E. 781. The court held that although the complaint in an action against a warehouseman for loss of goods, did not allege negligence genera......
  • Lumpkin v. Mankin, (No. 12064.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...plaintiff be required to make his complaint more definite and certain. Sutton v. Railway, 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; Prescott v. Railway, 99 S. C. 422, 83 S. E. 781. There was some evidence as to negligence on part of the defendant. Plaintiff testified that he was trying to get the mule ou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...permits evidence of specific acts under a general allegation of negligence not objected to. See the cases of Prescott v. Railroad Co., 99 S. C. 422, 83 S. E. 781, where the Sutton Case is specifically referred to as one containing general allegations of negligence against the carrier, as we......
  • Southern Railway Company v. Prescott, No. 358
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1916
    ...show negligence as a basis for recovery. Judgment upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 99 S. C. 422, 83 S. E. 781. With respect to the Federal question, the court said: 'The defendant claims that, inasmuch as this is an interstate shipment......
  • Arkwright Mills v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., No. 16407
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 12, 1950
    ...question, but it is settled contrary to the contention of the appellant in this state by the case of Prescott v. Southern Railway Co., 99 S.C. 422, 83 S.E. 781. The court held that although the complaint in an action against a warehouseman for loss of goods, did not allege negligence genera......
  • Lumpkin v. Mankin, (No. 12064.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...plaintiff be required to make his complaint more definite and certain. Sutton v. Railway, 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; Prescott v. Railway, 99 S. C. 422, 83 S. E. 781. There was some evidence as to negligence on part of the defendant. Plaintiff testified that he was trying to get the mule ou......
  • 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