Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chewning v. Clarendon County

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 3, 1931No. 13286Published

1DissentJustice Cothran

(dissenting) : This is an action under Section 2948 of the Code of 1922 (as amended by Act April 14, 1925 [34 St. at Large, p. 287]), and Section 2950, for damages on account of the alleged wrongful death of the plaintiffs intestate, John H. Chewning, her husband, resulting from the breaking in of a bridge of the-county over which intestate was driving a tractor owned by the county and operated by the intestate as an employee of the county and under the direction of a superior officer.

The complaint alleges that the collapse of the bridge was due to the defective condition of the timbers and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Margaret HouseIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Faust v. Richland CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
  3. Dunn v. Town of BarnwellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895
  4. Commonwealth v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  5. Mullinax v. HambrightSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1920

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API