Fitzgerald v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Prince, J., Charleston, October, 1912. Action by Kate Fitzgerald, administratrix of John Fitzgerald, against J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company. Defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Before Prince, J., Charleston, October, 1912. Action by Kate Fitzgerald, administratrix of John Fitzgerald, against J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company. Defendant appeals. Party served was not engaged in service of appellant when served: 61 S. C. 361; 83 S. C. 224; Code 1902, 847; 25 S. E. 947. Motion for leave to answer did not give Court jurisdiction of defendant: 61 S. C. 512; 73 S. C. 292; 69 S. C. 278; 62 S. C. 533. Where party makes a general appearance, he waives the right to contest the service: 46 S. C.'9; 61 S. C. 520;'69 S. C. 278; 73 S. C. 296; 78 S. C. 507; 3 Cyc. 507.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is. an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Prince, refusing a motion to1 set aside the service of the summons, in an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, for damages sustained by her, on account of the death of her husband, alleged to have been caused by a collision with an automobile under the control of defendant’s agents, at Charleston, S. C., on the ground that R. D. Reid, upon whom the summons was served, was not, at the time of the service, within the State, as the agent of the defendant; 'but, on the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Thompson v. Queen City Coach Co., Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1933
- Williams v. HatcherSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
- State v. SullivanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- A. Wichman & Son v. FoxSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914
- Mims v. GarvinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917