Sparks v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 9920.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHYDRICK
Citation95 S.E. 344
PartiesSPARKS. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al.
Decision Date09 March 1918
Docket Number(No. 9920.)

95 S.E. 344

SPARKS.
v.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al.

(No. 9920.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 9, 1918.


Gary, C. J., and Watts, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; George E. Prince, Judge.

Action by W. E. Sparks, as administrator of Eugene Sparks, deceased, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

L. D. Jennings and A. S. Harby, both of Sumter, for appellant.

P. A. Willcox, of Florence, and Mark Reynolds and L. W. McLemore, both of Sumter, for respondents.

HYDRICK, J. Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the railroad company and L. C. Jones, one of its passenger conductors, alleging that the conductor, or some other agent of the company, threw plaintiff's intestate off a moving train and thereby caused his death. The jury returned a verdict against the railroad company alone, and the judgments were entered thereon in favor of plaintiff against the company, and in favor of Jones against the plaintiff. The company appealed from the judgment entered

[95 S.E. 345]

against it, but plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment entered against him in favor of Jones. On hearing the company's appeal, this court reversed the judgment against it, and ordered a new trial on the ground that the liability of the company was predicated solely upon the alleged wrongful act of Jones, and, as the jury had found in favor of Jones, thereby acquitting him of any wrongful act, the company was necessarily acquitted of any wrongful act done through the agency of Jones. 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739.

When the case went back to the circuit court, the company, by supplemental answer, pleaded the judgment in favor of Jones as a bar to the further prosecution of the action. The court sustained the plea in so far as the liability of the company depended upon the acts of Jones, holding that Jones and his alleged wrongful acts were out of the case, as the verdict and judgment in his favor amounted to an adjudication that he was guilty of no actionable wrong. But the court further held that, as there was an allegation in the complaint that plaintiff's intestate was thrown from the train by Jones, or some other agent of the defendant company, the judgment in favor of Jones did not preclude the plaintiff from proving that the death of his intestate was caused by the wrongful act of some other agent or servant of the company for whose act the company would be liable. Under this ruling, plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove that the train porter assisted Jones in throwing plaintiff's intestate off. Jones and the porter both denied that they had put him off, and the testimony of several other witnesses examined on behalf of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12210.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 26, 1927
    ...upon to pay on account of the servant's negligent act." In support of this position, the opinion cites Sparks v. R. Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344, Jones v. R. Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183, and Sparks v. R. Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739, cases also relied upon by the appellants. The......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...true, even in passenger and carrier cases. Durst v. Railroad Co., 130 S. C. 165, 125 S. E. 651. In Sparks v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344, the action was against the railroad company and its conductor, jointly, based upon the alleged willful act of the conductor in pitching a t......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...the negligence of the servant, a verdict against the master alone will not be allowed to stand. Sparks v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344; Jones v. Railroad Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183; Sparks v. Railroad Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739. He specifically charged the jury: "If ......
  • Williams v. Hines
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 22, 1920
    ...Ry. Co. v. Dancey (Okl.) 176 P. 209; Bauer v. Great Northern R. R. (N. D.) 169 N.W. 84; Sparks v. A. C. L., 109 S. C. [80 Fla. 699] 145, 95 S.E. 344; Jones v. Southern Railway, 106 S.C. 20, 90 S.E. 183; Thompson v. So. Pac., 31 Cal.App. 567, 161 P. 21; N. C. & N.E. R. R. v. Jopes, 142 U.S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12210.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 26, 1927
    ...upon to pay on account of the servant's negligent act." In support of this position, the opinion cites Sparks v. R. Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344, Jones v. R. Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183, and Sparks v. R. Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739, cases also relied upon by the appellants. The......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...true, even in passenger and carrier cases. Durst v. Railroad Co., 130 S. C. 165, 125 S. E. 651. In Sparks v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344, the action was against the railroad company and its conductor, jointly, based upon the alleged willful act of the conductor in pitching a t......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...the negligence of the servant, a verdict against the master alone will not be allowed to stand. Sparks v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344; Jones v. Railroad Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183; Sparks v. Railroad Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739. He specifically charged the jury: "If ......
  • Williams v. Hines
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 22, 1920
    ...Ry. Co. v. Dancey (Okl.) 176 P. 209; Bauer v. Great Northern R. R. (N. D.) 169 N.W. 84; Sparks v. A. C. L., 109 S. C. [80 Fla. 699] 145, 95 S.E. 344; Jones v. Southern Railway, 106 S.C. 20, 90 S.E. 183; Thompson v. So. Pac., 31 Cal.App. 567, 161 P. 21; N. C. & N.E. R. R. v. Jopes, 142 U.S. ......
  • 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