Branham v. Camden Cotton Mill
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Townsend, J., Kershaw, September, 1900. Action for damages for personal injuries by Starling W. Branham against The Camden Cotton Mill.
Read the full summary
Before Townsend, J., Kershaw, September, 1900. Action for damages for personal injuries by Starling W. Branham against The Camden Cotton Mill. From judgment sustaining demurrer of defendant, plaintiff appeals. cites: Whether defendant failed to furnish suitable machinery, or was negligent in not stopping the engine, are questions for the jury: 15 S. C., 449; 18 S. C., 270; 19 S. C., 20; 47 S. C., 382; 51 S. C., 296. The latter cite: Failure to furnish safe machinery was not a breach of duty of defendant to plaintiff: 15 S. C., 449. No negligence alleged in mending machinery in motion: 44 S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer for insufficiency to the following complaint:
“I. That the defendant, The Camden Cotton Mill, is now, and was at the time hereinafter mentioned, a corporation duly created under and by the laws of the State of South Carolina, and is, and was, operating a cotton mill at Camden, in said county and State, and the plaintiff was, on said date hereinafter mentioned, in its employ as a machinist.
“II. That on November 3d, 1899, 'he walked from the machine shop into the ■engine room, which…
2Cited by5 opinions
- International & Great Northern Railroad v. HallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Shirley v. Abbeville Furniture Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Brasel v. Oregon R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Hill v. Broad River Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1929
- Veronee v. Charleston Consol. Ry. & Lighting Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1929