Salley v. Seabd. Air Line Ry

Decision Date27 February 1907
Citation56 S.E. 782,76 S.C. 173
PartiesSALLEY. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
1. Carriers—Delay in Shipment—Connecting Carriers.

A railway company accepting a bill of lading marked, "Prompt shipment required, " assumes responsibility for delay of connecting carrier.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers, §§ 767, 770, 771.]

2. Same—Recovery of Penalty.

Under the act providing a penalty for failure to deliver freight in a certain number of hours, when notified that prompt shipment is required, Sunday is not to be included in the days for which the penalty is allowed, as freight trains are prohibited by law from running on Sunday.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Klugh, Judge.

Action by J. I. Salley against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. From a judgment affirming a judgment of a magistrate, defendant appeals. Modified.

Wm. H. Lyles and'E. L. Craig, for appellant.

De Pass & De Pass and Jas. H. Fowles, for respondent.

WOODS, J. This action was brought In the court of Magistrate Moorman to recover $50 alleged to be due as damages and statutory penalty for delay In transportation of fertilizers shipped over defendant's railroad from Columbia, S. C, by Southern Oil Company to the defendant at Woodford, S. C, on March 24, 1906, and not delivered until April 5, 1906. The answer was a general denial. The judgment for $40 penalty and $2 damages was affirmed by the circuit court. The statute under which the penalty was claimed provides: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina, that from and after May 15th, 1904, all railroad companies doing business in this state shall transport to its destination-all freight received by them for transportation within this state within a reasonable time after receipt thereof, not exceeding the following times after midnight of the day of receipt thereof, to wit: Between points not over one hundred miles apart, seventy-two hours; between points over one hundred and not over two hundred miles apart, ninety-six hours, and between points over two hundred miles apart, one hundred and twenty hours. The nearest route by railroad shall be taken in each case as the distance between the points: Provided, that notice be given to the receiving company that prompt shipment of such freight is required, and when requested, such company shall Insert in the bill of lading the words, 'prompt shipment required, ' which shall be conclusive evidence of such notice, and each such company shall extend such notice to its connecting line or be liable for the consequences of its failure to do so. That any such company failing to comply with the provisions of this act, except for good and sufficient cause, the burden of proof of which shall be on the company so failing, shall be subject, in addition to the liabilities and remedies now existing for unreasonable delay in the transportation of freight to a penalty of five dollars per day for every day of delay in excess of the time hereinbefore limited, to be recovered by any consignee, who may be injured in any way by such delay, or by the owner or the holder of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Daughty v. Northwestern R. Co. of South Carolina
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 2 septembre 1912
    ...the consignee against defendant for loss of the goods, defendant is concluded by the bill of lading issued by its agent. Salley v. S. A. L., 76 S.C. 173, 56 S.E. 782; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 85 S.C. 537, 64 S.E. 220, S.E. 908, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1177, 21 Ann. Cas. 223. It is clear, therefo......
  • Smithie v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 13 juin 1924
    ... ... affirmatively approved it. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co ... v. Mallard, 53 Fla. 515, 43 So. 755 ... It is a ... general rule, though ... less than seven, Sunday is not counted. See Salley v ... Seaboard Air Line Ry., 76 S.C. 173, 56 S.E. 782; ... Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co v ... ...
  • Craig v. U.S. Health & Acc. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 22 avril 1908
    ... ... position, and we can find none. On the contrary, the rule is ... as stated in Salley v. Railway Co., 76 S.C. 176, 56 ... S.E. 782: "Where an act is required to be done in a ... ...
  • Dill v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 3 août 1949
    ...damages and $40 statutory penalty was, quoting, 'affirmed, with the reduction of $5, the overcharge on the amount found as penalty.' 76 S.C. 173, 56 S.E. 782. The clear and concise judgment of this court in the appeal is here quoted from 79 S.C. at page 389, 60 S.E. at page 938: 'The questi......
  • 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