Wylie v. Ohio River & C. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1897
• Citation: 26 S.E. 676,48 S.C. 405
• Parties: WYLIE et al. v. OHIO RIVER & C. R. CO. OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

26 S.E. 676

48 S.C. 405

WYLIE et al. v. OHIO RIVER & C. R. CO. OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 5, 1897

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

Action by W. E. Wylie, executor, and Eliza J. Wylie, executrix, of the will of John D. Wylie, deceased, against the Ohio River & Charleston Railroad Company of South Carolina. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

N. W Hardin and R. E. & R. B. Allison, for appellant.

R. E Wylie, for respondents.

JONES J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court affirming the judgment of a magistrate's court in an action for damages for the negligent killing of a cow. John D. Wylie at his death, May 15, 1894, held a chattel mortgage, dated December 28, 1893, executed by Wyatt Fraser to secure a note for $50, payable November 1, 1894, the mortgage covering the cow and some other personal property. Some time in December 1894, after the maturity of the mortgage debt, while in the possession of the mortgagor, the cow was run over and killed by the defendant's train. This action was brought to recover $50 damages. The defendant denied the negligent killing, and set up that plaintiffs had no title or interest in the cow and no right of action for damages. A trial by jury having been waived, Magistrate W. P. Caskey, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for $25, which judgment, on appeal to the circuit court, was affirmed.

The first and second exceptions raise the question that the magistrate had no jurisdiction under the constitution to try the case. These exceptions were not discussed by appellant doubtless because the question raised has been finally settled in the recent cases of In re Hooper (S. C.) 26 S.E. 466, and Delk v. Zorn, Id.

The third exception complains that there was no evidence of negligence to warrant the judgment below. This relates to the sufficiency of the evidence, which we have so often declared this court cannot consider in a case at law.

The fourth exception alleges error "because the plaintiffs had no title to the cow when she was killed, and they were not the real parties in interest." It is well settled that upon breach of the condition of a chattel mortgage the mortgagee becomes the legal owner of the mortgaged property. It follows that the mortgagee, as legal owner, may bring action for damages for injury to...