Molair v. Railway Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Norton, J., Barnwell, November, 1888. Action by Leroy Molair against the Port Royal and Augusta' Railway Company. .See this case, once before reported on a former appeal, in 29 S. C., 132. The charge to the jury was as follows: The gist of the action is negligence.
Read the full summary
Before Norton, J., Barnwell, November, 1888. Action by Leroy Molair against the Port Royal and Augusta' Railway Company. .See this case, once before reported on a former appeal, in 29 S. C., 132. The charge to the jury was as follows: The gist of the action is negligence. Negligence is defined to be the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such person under existing circumstances would not' have done, the essence of the fault being either in omission or commission. Counsel on either side have…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice Simpson.
The plaintiff, respondent, .brought the action below to recover the value of certain mules alleged by him to have been negligently killed by defendant’s train of cars. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $425, and the defendant gave notice of a motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes. The court, however, adjourned without hearing this motion, and the appellant’s attorney, supposing that he had an oral agreement with the attorney on the other side that said motion should be heard after the adjournment, sent his…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
- Burst v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- Hanner v. Hillcrest Land Co., Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
- Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
- Kneece v. HallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.