Bagnal v. Southern Express Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Shipp, J., Sumter, Eall term, 1915. Action by J. M. Bagnal against the Southern Express Company. Judgment for plaintiff in the magistrate’s Court, which was affirmed on appeal by the Circuit Court, and defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Before Shipp, J., Sumter, Eall term, 1915. Action by J. M. Bagnal against the Southern Express Company. Judgment for plaintiff in the magistrate’s Court, which was affirmed on appeal by the Circuit Court, and defendant appeals. The defendant’s exceptions here follow: His Honor, the Circuit Judge, erred, it is respectfully submitted: (1) In not reversing the said magistrate, who charged that the provisions of sections. 2598 and 2599 of volume I of the Code of 1912, which he referred to as “the warehouseman law,” was the law of this case, without qualification, and stated to the jury…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary.
This action was commenced in a magistrate’s Court to recover the sum of $1, the alleged value of a box of peaches, shipped from a station in Clarendon county to the plaintiff at Sumter, S. C., and for the penalty of $50, for failure to pay the claim within the time required by law. The address on the box did not contain the number of the street upon which the plaintiff resided. The same person, however, who shipped the peaches in question, had, on several previous occasions, shipped boxes of peaches to the plaintiff similarly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stanford v. CuddSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
- Price v. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
3Cited by5 opinions
- Burns v. WannamakerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- Hadfield v. GilchristCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2000
- Westbrook v. JefferiesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
- Aiken v. SeaburySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
- Driggers v. CannonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917