Simmons v. Wall

• Citation: 96 S.E. 493,110 S.C. 334
• Decision Date: 22 July 1918
• Docket Number: 10054.
• Parties: SIMMONS v. WALL ET AL. ASHLEY v. WALL ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 493

110 S.C. 334

SIMMONS v. WALL ET AL.

ASHLEY v. WALL ET AL.

No. 10054.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 22, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; H. F Rice, Judge.

Actions by Joseph Simmons and Joseph Ashley, respectively, against Marion Wall and another. From an order granting a motion to remove the actions to another county, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

James E. Davis, of Barnwell, for appellants.

J. B Salley, of Aiken, for respondents.

FRASER J.

These two actions were tried together and were actions for damages. The complaint alleges:

"That on the afternoon of the 18th of November, 1917 the plaintiffs were driving along the public highway riding in a buggy being drawn by a horse, the property of the plaintiff, Joseph Simmons, which was of the value of $200 and while so riding along the public road leading from the upper Saltkehatchie bridge into the town of Barnwell, and without warning, the defendants, who were traveling in automobiles, ran behind the buggy in which the plaintiffs were riding at a furious rate of speed, causing the horse of the plaintiff, Simmons, to take fright and run away, overturning the buggy and precipitating plaintiffs upon the ground with great force, seriously injuring them, and the horse, becoming entangled in the harness, ran on, and completely demolished the buggy, injuring the said horse, so much so that he has been rendered worthless. That the said injuries would not have occurred but for the reckless, careless, and negligent acts of the defendants in running their automobiles at a furious rate of speed, and in not sounding the automobile horn or whistle before reaching or coming in contact with plaintiff's buggy, and in not slowing down their machines in order that they might pass them with safety."

The defendant Wall lives in Aiken county, and the defendant Lowman lives in Barnwell county. The defendant Wall made a motion before Judge Rice to remove the case as to him from Barnwell to Aiken county. This motion was supported by affidavits of the two defendants, in which it is alleged that the defendant Lowman was not present at the time of the accident, but that Lowman came up after the accident and after the defendant Wall had gone away, and that all that the defendant Lowman did was to take up the injured men and carry them to a place where they could receive assistance. The defendants allege that the defendant...