Smith v. Chamberlain
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Izlar, J., Aiken, April, 1891. This was an action by Bebecca Smith and her husband against D. H. Chamberlain, receiver of the South Carolina Bailway Company, commenced February 24, 1891. The judge charged the jury as follows: Gentlemen of the jury: This case has consumed considerable time, but no more time, however, than its importance demands, and it becomes your duty and mine now, to perform our respective parts in this trial.
Read the full summary
Before Izlar, J., Aiken, April, 1891. This was an action by Bebecca Smith and her husband against D. H. Chamberlain, receiver of the South Carolina Bailway Company, commenced February 24, 1891. The judge charged the jury as follows: Gentlemen of the jury: This case has consumed considerable time, but no more time, however, than its importance demands, and it becomes your duty and mine now, to perform our respective parts in this trial. It is my duty to give you the law in this case as I understand it, and it is your duty to find the facts in this case under the testimony as you have heard it,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
The plaintiffs are husband and wife, and they brought this action for damages to the plaintiff, Rebecca Smith, for having been, as alleged, wrongfully ejected from the “waitiug room” of the South Carolina Railway at Graniteville, S. C. The following is a condensed statement of the allegations of the plaintiffs: Ou September 13, 1890, the plaintiff, Rebecca, being at Graniteville, and desiring to take passage on a passenger train for Aiken, S. C., went into the passenger room, at the Graniteville depot, commonly occupied by lady…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Flood v. News and Courier Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Tucker v. BleaseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914