Wade v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1938
• Docket Number: 14629.
• Parties: WADE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

195 S.E. 560

186 S.C. 265

WADE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.

No. 14629.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 4, 1938

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; A. L Gaston, Judge.

Action by Ruth Wade, as administratrix, against the Southern Railway Company and others arising out of a crossing accident. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

J. E Harley and Frank P. Cave, both of Barnwell, for appellants.

Brown & Watts and Blatt & Fales, all of Barnwell, for respondent.

E. C DENNIS, Acting Associate Justice.

This action was commenced in July, 1937, in Barnwell county.

The alleged cause of action arose from an automobile accident near Columbia on the line of the Southern Railway Company in which accident plaintiff's intestate was killed by being run into by a train of the Southern Railway Company. A main line of the defendant runs through Barnwell county and in that county the defendant maintains stations and agents.

A motion by defendant was made for a transfer of this case from Barnwell county to Richland county. This motion was supported by affidavits and the change of place of trial was asked for on the ground of convenience of witnesses and that the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

The supporting affidavits set forth that the accident occurred in Richland county two miles north of Columbia, that all of defendant's witnesses lived in Richland county, and that if the case were tried in Barnwell county, it would be very expensive and inconvenient to arrange the attendance of these witnesses. The further ground that at the time of the accident the deceased was living in the city of Columbia with his wife, the plaintiff in this case, and they were both residents of the city of Columbia in Richland county.

This motion was resisted by plaintiff and numerous affidavits submitted in support of their contention, among others it being shown that a number of plaintiff's witnesses were residents of Barnwell county, and that an earlier trial could be had if the case remained in Barnwell county.

After hearing argument of counsel, the presiding judge refused the motion.

It is well settled in this state that a motion to change the place of trial upon this statutory ground (convenience of witnesses and promotion of the ends of justice) is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the circuit judge. Code 1932, § 426 (3).

"' In the nature of the case, then, there must be latitude in which the judicial discretion may move; and that means a hard and fast rule for the exercise of discretion cannot be...