Price v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1913
• Citation: 77 S.E. 703,93 S.C. 576
• Parties: PRICE v. CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

77 S.E. 703

93 S.C. 576

PRICE v. CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 14, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Hampton County; J. S Wilson, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Rebecca Price against the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. W Vincent, of Hampton, for appellant. J. W. Moore, of Hampton for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

Plaintiff shipped some household goods over defendant's road. They were delayed and damaged in transit. As defendant had no agent at the station of destination of the goods, plaintiff filed a claim with defendant's agent at the nearest station for $85.25 for the damages done to the goods. Defendant failed to pay the claim within 30 days after the filing thereof. Thereupon plaintiff brought an action in the court of common pleas against defendant for $500 damages for the delay, $200 damages to the goods, and $40 statutory penalties for the delay. The jury found a verdict for $90.85 in favor of plaintiff, and judgment was entered thereon. Thereafter plaintiff brought this action in the court of a magistrate to recover $50, the penalty provided by statute for failure to pay the claim for damages, which she had filed, within 30 days after the filing thereof. The magistrate gave judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed and the magistrate reported that he gave judgment for defendant, because plaintiff did not file her claim with the defendant's agent at the point of destination--a ground which was erroneous, as the statute (Civ. Code 1912, § 2573) provides that, when there is no agent at the point of destination, the claim may be filed with the nearest agent to such point.

On hearing the appeal, the circuit court affirmed the judgment, without assigning any reason therefor. As the circuit court is required to give judgment, in such cases, according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects, which do not affect the merits (Code Proc. § 407), and as the record does not disclose the grounds upon which the court rendered its judgment, we must assume that it was rested upon some sound and meritorious ground, and sustain it, if the record discloses any such ground.

There are two substantial grounds upon which the court below could have rendered judgment for the defendant. The burden was upon plaintiff to prove that she recovered "the full amount claimed"--that is, the full amount for which she filed her claim--before she was entitled to recover the penalty. The purpose of the statute in so providing was to prevent the filing of fictitious or exorbitant claims and compelling the carriers to pay, or...