Ward v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, 12840.

Decision Date20 February 1930
Docket NumberNo. 12840.,12840.
Citation151 S.E. 904
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWARD et al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Cothran, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; S. W. G. Shipp, Judge.

Action by S. W. Ward and others against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment of the magistrate for plaintiffs was affirmed by the circuit court, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The order of Judge Shipp referred to in the opinion is as follows:

This matter comes before me on an appeal from the court of Magistrate W. J. M. Knight, on exceptions set out in the notice and grounds of appeal. One of the defendant's main grounds of appeal is that it alleges error on the part of the magistrate in refusing to charge the jury the stipulationon the back of the bill of lading referring to cases in which the carrier would not be liable. I am of the opinion that grouped together as they were, the magistrate was right in refusing to charge the stipulation contained in the bill of lading. It appears, however, that the magistrate did charge or stated to the jury that the company would not be liable for death or loss resulting from the inherent vice or nature and propensity of the animals, which is the only case in which the common carrier will be absolved from liability for a negligence. There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment of the court, and it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the appeal be dismissed and the verdict and judgment of the magistrate's court affirmed.

Ashton H. Williams, of Florence, for appellant.

Jack Dalziel, of Lake City, for respondents.

WATTS, C. J. [1, 2] For the reasons assigned by Judge Shipp, it is the judgment of this court that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed.

BLEASE, STABLER, and CARTER, JJ., concur.

COTHRAN, J., dissents.

BLEASE, J. (concurring). [3] Section 669 of volume 1 of the Code of 1922, relating to appeals to the circuit court from the courts of magistrates, contains this provision: "Upon hearing the appeal, the appellate Court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects which do not affect the merits."

It was decided in Fraser v. A. C. L. Railroad Company, 93 S. C. 272, 76 S. E. 609: "On appeal from magistrate's judgment, the appellate court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case without regard to technical errors."

"Under Code Civ. Proc., sec. 407 [now sec. 669, Vol. 1, Code 1922] a case on appeal from a magistrate should be considered by the Circuit Court upon its merits, and judgment there given according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects." Feinstein v. Politz, 103 S. C. 238, 87 S. E. 1005.

Also, it is well established in this state that this court has no right to question the findings of fact in a magistrate's court, approved by the circuit judge on appeal, when there was any evidence whatever, however slight it may have been, tending to prove the issues involved.

We cannot expect our magistrates, usually untrained in the technicalities of the law, and unfamiliar with the orderly manner of instructing juries, to deliver their charges without some little confusion. In fact, the jurors they instruct often know as much about the law as the magistrates do. The conclusion of the circuit judge, who has the right to review all the facts, on appeal from a magistrate's court, for the purpose of determining the justice of the case, that the parties have had a fair trial in the inferior court, and that substantial justice has been done, should be given more weight in this court than almost anything else in the consideration of appeals in cases originally heard in the courts of magistrates.

See the recent case of Naufal v. Gergel, 136 S. C. 366, 134 S. E. 463, which strongly supports the views herein expressed.

STABLER and CARTER, JJ., concur.

COTHRAN, J. (dissenting). This is an action for damages on account of the loss of two head of cattle transported from Estill, S. C, to Lake City, S. C. The Seaboard Air Line was the initial carrier which issued the bill of lading; the Coast Line being a connecting carrier to destination. The plaintiffs claimed damages in the sum of $78.94, the alleged value of a steer and a yearling. Upon the trial before a magistrate the defendant admitted its liability in the sum of $17.72 for the loss of the yearling and offered to allow judgment therefor, contesting its liability for the loss of the steer upon the ground that the death of the animal was due to the inherent vice, weakness, or natural propensity of the animal and to the negligence of the owner or agent in improperly loading the stock several hours prior to the scheduled arrival of the train which was to carry them.

The defendant relied upon the following provision in the bill of lading:

"Sec. 1. (a) Except in the ease of its negligence proximately contributing thereto, no carrier or party in possession of all or any part of the livestock herein described shall be liable for any loss thereof or damage thereto or delay caused by the act of God, the public enemy, quarantine, the authority of law the inherent vice, weakness, or natural propensity of the animal, or the act of default of the shipper or owner, or the agent of either, or by riots, strikes, stoppage of labor or threatened violence.

"(b) Unless caused by the negligence of the carrier or its employees no carrier shall be liable for or on account of any injury or death sustained by said livestock, occasioned by any of the following causes; overloading, crowding, one upon another, escaping from cars, pens, or vessels, kicking or goring or otherwise injuring themselves or damage to or obstruction of track or other causes beyond the carrier's control."

Upon the trial of the case counsel for the plaintiffs preferred a request to charge as follows: "That there are two exceptions tothe common law rule of a common carrier for the carriage of livestock. One is the inherent vice of the animal and the natural propensity of the animal, and that under the law the presumption of negligence rests with the Railroad Company and it is up to the carrier to show that they were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. 192 COIN-OP. VIDEO GAME MACH.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 7, 2000
    ...by a circuit judge on appeal when there is any evidence, however slight, tending to prove issues involved. Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 S.C. 54, 151 S.E. 904 (1930); see also Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) ("In an action at......
  • Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1930
    ...151 S.E. 904 155 S.C. 54 WARD et al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. No. 12840.Supreme Court of South CarolinaFebruary 20, 1930 ...          Appeal ... from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; S.W. G ... ...

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