Traywick v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1905
• Citation: 50 S.E. 549,71 S.C. 82
• Parties: TRAYWICK v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E. 549

71 S.C. 82

TRAYWICK v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 11, 1905

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

Action by J. B. Traywick against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The question presented by the exceptions require reference to the complaint, which is as follows:

The first paragraph of the complaint alleges the corporate existence of the defendant .

"(2) That on or about the 16th day of October, 1899, the plaintiff ordered through W. H. Gibbes & Co., of Columbia, S C., one rice huller, to be shipped to him at Cope, S. C., as early as practicable. That shortly thereafter plaintiff received through the said W. H. Gibbes & Co. the bill of lading for said rice huller, duly indorsed to him, showing that on the said 16th day of October, 1899, the Barnard & Leas Manufacturing Company, of Moline, in the state of Illinois, had delivered to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company one rice huller, knocked down and crated two pieces, weight 1,100 pounds, consigned to W. H. Gibbes & Co., Cope, S. C., and that the said rice huller had been shipped as second-class freight, at the rate of one dollar and forty-two cents per hundred.

(3) That the said bill of lading provided, among other things, as follows: "If destination is not on the line of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co., delivery to be made at any convenient station on the line of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. to a connecting carrier; whereupon all further liability of the Chicago Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. shall cease.' That the said Chicago, Burlington &amp Quincy Railroad Company, in pursuance of its said agreement and for the consideration therein named, did, within a reasonable time after the receipt of the said rice huller as aforesaid, transport and deliver the said rice huller to the connecting carrier at the most convenient station on its line, the point of destination (Cope, S. C.) not being a station on its said line, and that thereafter, and within a reasonable time, the said rice huller, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of $275, was delivered to and received by the defendant herein, to be transported and delivered by the defendant at some convenient station on its line to the connecting carrier, to be transported to the point of destination (Cope, S. C.), a station not on defendant's line.

(4) That notwithstanding the said rice huller was, as plaintiff is informed and believes, delivered to and received by the defendant in good order from its connecting carrier, and within reasonable time after its shipment from Moline, in the state of Illinois, the defendant failed to care for or safely to carry said rice huller, but so negligently and carelessly carried the same that the said rice huller became broken, thereby unfit for use until the broken parts could be supplied from the manufactory at Moline, aforesaid, and that after the said rice huller had been carried by the defendant to the city of Columbia, in the state of South Carolina, a station on the defendant's line, it was unloaded and placed in its depot at said point, and was there, through the negligence and carelessness of the defendant and its servants, permitted to remain the space of thirty days, and was not carried forward until the same was traced up by the said W. H. Gibbes & Co., and ordered to be carried forward by the defendant, as it had undertaken and agreed to do.

(5) That the said rice huller did not, by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, arrive at Cope, S. C., the point of its destination, until the 11th day of November, 1899, more than thirty days after it was delivered to and received by the defendant company, to be carried forward by the defendant company with care and safety, and without delay, to the point of its destination, and more than sixty days after it was shipped from Moline, in the state of Illinois.

(6) That the plaintiff was at the times above mentioned, and is now, engaged in the rice milling business, and the delay caused by the defendant in forwarding said rice huller, and in having the injuries thereto repaired, deprived him of its use during nearly all the rice milling season, and caused a number of persons who had engaged the plaintiff to hull their rice to take it elsewhere, whereby he lost all

...