Wertz v. Southern Ry.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Memminger, J., Newberry, November, 1905. Action by Jonathan H. Wertz and Lee H. Wertz against Southern Ry. Co. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. cites : Contract by Railway Co. to maintain a public bridge without compensation is'Ultra tiires: SO At.
Read the full summary
Before Memminger, J., Newberry, November, 1905. Action by Jonathan H. Wertz and Lee H. Wertz against Southern Ry. Co. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. cites : Contract by Railway Co. to maintain a public bridge without compensation is'Ultra tiires: SO At. R., 829; Elliott on R. R., 23. If built as a gratuity, the Co. is under no obligation to repair it: 14 Wend., 61; 23 Wend., 446; 34 S. E., 986; 80 N. W., 787; 36 At., 202; 50 At, 829; Elliott on R., 22; 101 Mass., 193; 88 N. C., 129; 17 N. W. R., 972; 16 S. C., 567; 43 S. C., 221; 54 S. C., 98; 58 S. C., 359; 65 S. C., 251;…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the negligence of the defendant, while crossing the bridge hereinafter described.
The complaint contains the following allegations:
“That defendant’s railroad crosses Saluda River at a place, where there now is, and has been for more than fifty years, a public highway, running to the river bank in the county of Newberry on one side, and in Greenwood county on the other side. That the plaintiffs are informed and believe that about the year 1850, when the said line of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lundy v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Rhodes v. Granby Cotton MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- State v. RodmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
- Whisonant v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1910