South Carolina Steamboat Co. v. Wilmington, C. & A.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 March 1896
• Citation: 24 S.E. 337,46 S.C. 327
• Parties: SOUTH CAROLINA STEAMBOAT CO. v. WILMINGTON, C. & A. R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

24 S.E. 337

46 S.C. 327

SOUTH CAROLINA STEAMBOAT CO. v. WILMINGTON, C. & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 23, 1896

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Marion county; D. A Townsend, Judge.

Action by the South Carolina Steamboat Company against the Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta Railroad Company to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the obstruction by defendant company of the navigation of the Pedee river, alleged to be a navigable stream. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The following is a copy of the complaint:

"The plaintiff, complaining of the defendant, alleges:

"First. That the plaintiff is a corporation, duly created by and existing under the laws of the state of South Carolina aforesaid, under the name of the South Carolina Steamboat Company.

"Second. That the defendant is a corporation duly created by and existing under the laws of the state of South Carolina aforesaid, under the name of the Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta Railway Company.

"Third. That the plaintiff has, for a large number of years, and under the provisions of its charter as a common carrier constantly and without intermission run a line of steamers from the port of Georgetown, up and along the Pedee river, and to all points on said river, for the purpose of transporting passengers, produce, manufactured goods, general merchandise, and other freight, to and along the said river, and to and at the several stations used by the said plaintiff along the said river, for the receipt and delivery of such passengers, freight, and merchandise. That, in the course of such employment, the plaintiff has built and owns a large number of steamers, which are exclusively used for such transportation of freight and merchandise along the said Pedee river, the said steamers being of great value. That it was well known, to the public generally, and to the defendant especially, that the plaintiff was engaged in this business. That, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has for years been exchanging freight with the defendant from and for points on said river, both above and below the point where the railroad track and bridge of the defendant crosses the river.

"Fourth. That, by reason of such long and regularly continued line of boats so made by the plaintiff on the said Pedee river, the plaintiff had built up a large, valuable, and lucrative business, in the transportation of freight and passengers to and between the said stations, so used by it along the said river. That the value of said business depended and depends, to a very large extent, on the regularity of the trips made by the steamers of the plaintiff, and on the certainty with which parties living along the shores of the said river might and may calculate upon the arrival and departure of said steamers, as means for the transportation of freight and passengers. That it is, therefore, a matter of vital importance, and great value to the plaintiff, that the trips of the said steamers should not be interrupted, but that they should be made regularly, and according to their established and advertised schedules.

"Fifth. That the Pedee river is a navigable river, lying and being in this state, and partly in the county of Marion, and that the same has, for a number of years past, been actually navigated by this plaintiff, by the use of its boats as hereinbefore described.

"Sixth. That the defendant, also a common carrier, is engaged in the business of running a railroad in this state, and that the said railroad crosses the said river at a point midway of the line of travel on said river used by the plaintiff with its steamers. That, in order to cross the said river, the defendant has erected and maintained a bridge, which bridge is situated partly within the county of Marion; but that, in order not to obstruct, but allow, the free use of the said river by the plaintiff and others similarly situated, there had been placed in the said bridge a draw, which could be and was opened from time to time for the passage up and down the river of the steamers so owned by the plaintiff.

"Seventh. That, some time in the fall of 1892, the defendant desired, for its own advantage, and to continue its own business, to do certain repairs on the said bridge. That, in order to make such repairs, it was found necessary either to close the draw of said bridge, thereby stopping the use of the said river by this plaintiff, and breaking up the schedule established by it by long-continued usage, and causing it especial loss and damage, or else that the draw should be left open, thereby causing no inconvenience whatever to the plaintiff, but interfering with the use of the said bridge by the defendant as a means of passing over the said river. That it became, therefore, a question with the defendant whether, in order to effect the repairs which it desired, for its benefit, to make on said bridge, it should break up and interrupt the business of this plaintiff, carried on by it along the said river, and thereby cause it especial and great damage, or interrupt its own business, carried on by it over the said bridge, to its own loss and damage.

"Eighth. That the plaintiff and the defendant are, and for years have been, to a large extent, competitors for the business arising along the river, and in the vicinity of the crossing of the same by the said bridge, and that it is therefore of importance to each that their respective schedules shall be maintained, and a matter of special damage to the competitor that its schedule should be broken and interfered with, and the continuance of its regular services interrupted.

"Ninth. That it was well known to the defendant that any stoppage of navigation on said river, by closing the draw of said bridge, would cause serious and special damage to the complainants. That, about eight years previous to the date hereinafter mentioned, repairs were deemed necessary on the said bridge by defendants, but, before making the same and closing the draw therein, timely notice was given to, and satisfactory arrangements made with, the plaintiff to keep and maintain one of its steamers in the said river above the said bridge, in order not to interrupt the business of the plaintiff, or cause it the loss and damage which would necessarily and especially be caused to it by closing the said bridge and interrupting its regular schedule and communication. And that a large and additional expense incident to and attendant upon such arrangement, and the maintaining of such extra boat above the maintaining of such extra boat above the bridge, was borne and paid by the defendant.

"Tenth. That, before actually beginning the said repairs, in the said fall of the year 1892, the defendant notified this plaintiff that, in order to accommodate them both, and cause damage to neither, it (the defendant) would arrange to open the channel of the said river, by opening the draw in the bridge, and thereby removing any and all obstruction to the free navigation thereof on the regular days used by the plaintiff for passing up and down the said river. That, relying upon this assurance, the plaintiff did not, as it had intended to do, retain a boat above the bridge to carry on its business there, but allowed its boat then above the bridge to come down the river. But, upon the return of the said steamer, loaded with freight for points above the said bridge, on the next regular day, according to its schedule for passing up the river, the plaintiff found, to its great surprise, that the defendant, disregarding its promises and assurances, had closed the said bridge to its own advantage, and to the special detriment and damage of the plaintiff, and declined, upon the demand of the plaintiff, to open the same, or to allow the steamer of the plaintiff to pass through.

"Eleventh. That, in violation of the promise and undertaking of the defendant, and of the provisions of the laws of this state the said bridge was...