McDaniel v. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Memminger, J., Edgefield, Action by G. C. McDaniel against Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. . From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. cite: 10 Rich.
Read the full summary
Before Memminger, J., Edgefield, Action by G. C. McDaniel against Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. . From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. cite: 10 Rich. E. 54; 55 S. C. 334; 73 S. C. 306; 78 S. C. 527. No evidence of negligence: 45 S. C. 278; 69 S. C. 529; 72 S. C. 564; 19 S. C. 32, 38. Remarks in refusing nonsuit were pre}\idicial: 73 S. C. 383; 80 S. C. 383; 81 S. C. 378, 379; 83 S. E. 83; 87 S. C. 410. Error of law to refuse new trial where there was no evidence to sustain verdict: 54 S. C. 128; 65 S. C. 517; 66 S. C. 61; 70 S. C.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice; Fraser.
This is an action for the negligent killing of a dog. There are six exceptions, but if the first exception is sustained, the others need not be considered.
The first exception complains of error in the Circuit Judge in refusing a motion for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part, of the defendant. This exception must be sustained.
The only witness relied upon to prove negligence was Charley Bussey. He testified as follows:
“Charley Bussey, sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Mayson. Q. Where do you…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Walker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sanders v. HayesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924