Pearson v. County of Spartanburg
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, March, 1897. Action by J. M. Pearson et al. against the county of Spar-tanburg on the following complaint: 1. That at the times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiffs were, and are now, partners in the business of operating a saw mill, under the firm name of J. M. & G. W. Pearson. 2. That at the time hereinafter mentioned, the defendant was, and is now, a body politic and corporate, under and by virtue of the laws of this State, and as such was,…
Read the full summary
Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, March, 1897. Action by J. M. Pearson et al. against the county of Spar-tanburg on the following complaint: 1. That at the times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiffs were, and are now, partners in the business of operating a saw mill, under the firm name of J. M. & G. W. Pearson. 2. That at the time hereinafter mentioned, the defendant was, and is now, a body politic and corporate, under and by virtue of the laws of this State, and as such was, and is, entitled to sue and be sued. 3. That, among other things, at and during the said times, it was the duty of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The plaintiff herein brought this action to recover damages, alleged to have been sustained by the breaking in of a bridge, while their traction engine was crossing it. The complaint will be set out in the report of the case. The defendant denied all the allegations of the complaint except those contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof. The case was tried before his Honor, Judge Watts, and a jury, ac the March, 1897, term of the Court for Spartanburg County. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $312.
*4831 *482The defendant…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sonneborn v. Southern RailwaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
- Carolina Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of GreenwoodSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950