Spires v. South Bound R. Co

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGARY
Citation47 S.C. 28,24 S.E. 992
PartiesSPIRES. v. SOUTH BOUND R. CO.
Decision Date09 July 1896

24 S.E. 992
47 S.C. 28

SPIRES.
v.
SOUTH BOUND R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 9, 1896.


Accident at Crossing —Negligence — General Allegations—Proof of Specific Acts.

In an action against a railway company for personal injuries received at a crossing, where the complaint alleged generally that the injuries resulted from the negligent, unskillful, and careless management of defendant's train, testimony as to any specific acts tending to show negligence is competent, and it was error to exclude evidence that the defendant's servants in charge of the train failed to blow the whistle or ring the bell upon approaching the crossing.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Lexington county; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by James Jesse Spires, by his guardian ad litem, Eli Spires, against the South Bound Railroad Company, for personal injuries. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Meetze & Muller and W. H. Sharpe, for appellant.

C. J. C Hutson and Lyles & Muller, for respondent.

GARY, J. The appeal herein is from an order granting a nonsuit. The action was for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant The allegations of negligence are contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint, as follows: "(2) That on the 29th day of December, 1893, while the plaintiff, James Jesse Spires, was traveling along the public road in Lexington county, which said road the defendant's railroad crosses at a point between two and three miles north of the station upon said railroad called 'Gaston, ' in said county, and just as he reached said railroad at said crossing, the defendants, through their agents and servants, negligently, unskillfully, and carelessly managed their locomotive and train so as to strike, knock down, and run over the plaintiff, the said James Jesse Spires, by which negligent, unskillful, and careless conduct on the part of the defendants, their agents and servants, the plaintiff, the said James Jesse Spires, had his right arm broken, and received other bodily injuries, by reason whereof the plaintiff, the said James Jesse Spires, for a long time thereafter suffered very great pain, and from said injuries still suffers, and which injuries he alleges are permanent, to the plaintiff's, the said James Jesse Spires', damage $10,000." When Mrs. Sallie Spires, a witness for the plaintiff, was on the stand, the following was brought out in evidence: "Q. Where was it [the injury] done?...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...a specific act against the servant, or a specific act against some other servant, not alleged in the complaint. In Spires v. Railroad Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992, it is held that under a general allegation of negligence, in the absence of a motion to make more definite and certain, the p......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P. 665, 59 L. R. A. 209; Spires v. Railroad Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992, and other cases cited in these cases. It must be conceded that under the case of Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401......
  • Pendleton v. D.C. Ry, (No. 11794.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 30, 1925
    ...plaintiff may offer evidence of any act of negligence, against which the defendant may not be prepared to defend. Spires v. Railway Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992. We think, however, that the order did not involve the merits, and that the case falls within the rule announced in the cases of......
  • Wigg v. Soc, (No. 12436.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 26, 1928
    ...we call attention to the following decisions of this court: Wingo v. Iuman Mills, 76 S. C. 550, 57 S. E. 525; Spires v. Ry., 47 S. C. 30, 24 S. E. 992; Johnson v. Ry., 53 S. C. 303, 31 S. E. 212, 69 Am. St. Rep. 849; Charping v. Toxaway Mills, 70 S. C. 470, 50 S. E. 186; Montgomery v. Ry., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...a specific act against the servant, or a specific act against some other servant, not alleged in the complaint. In Spires v. Railroad Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992, it is held that under a general allegation of negligence, in the absence of a motion to make more definite and certain, the p......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P. 665, 59 L. R. A. 209; Spires v. Railroad Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992, and other cases cited in these cases. It must be conceded that under the case of Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401......
  • Pendleton v. D.C. Ry, (No. 11794.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 30, 1925
    ...plaintiff may offer evidence of any act of negligence, against which the defendant may not be prepared to defend. Spires v. Railway Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992. We think, however, that the order did not involve the merits, and that the case falls within the rule announced in the cases of......
  • Wigg v. Soc, (No. 12436.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 26, 1928
    ...we call attention to the following decisions of this court: Wingo v. Iuman Mills, 76 S. C. 550, 57 S. E. 525; Spires v. Ry., 47 S. C. 30, 24 S. E. 992; Johnson v. Ry., 53 S. C. 303, 31 S. E. 212, 69 Am. St. Rep. 849; Charping v. Toxaway Mills, 70 S. C. 470, 50 S. E. 186; Montgomery v. Ry., ......
  • 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