Thackston v. Port Royal &c. Railway Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Izlar, J., Spartanburg, October, 1892. Action by T. B. Thackston, as administrator of W. N. Boon, plaintiff, against the Port Royal and Western Carolina Railway Company. The judge charged the jury: The issues which you are to consider and decide are clearly defined by the pleadings. You are to determine from the testimony whether there has been any negligence in the case on the part of the plaintiff or the defendant. You are made the sole judges of the facts.
Read the full summary
Before Izlar, J., Spartanburg, October, 1892. Action by T. B. Thackston, as administrator of W. N. Boon, plaintiff, against the Port Royal and Western Carolina Railway Company. The judge charged the jury: The issues which you are to consider and decide are clearly defined by the pleadings. You are to determine from the testimony whether there has been any negligence in the case on the part of the plaintiff or the defendant. You are made the sole judges of the facts. I am not allowed to invade your province, by intimating even an opinion as to the facts, and I shall endeavor not to do so. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Me. Justice Pope.
This action for damages came on to be heard before Judge Izlar and a jury at the October, 1892, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County, when a verdict for the plaintiff was rendered, and a motion for a new trial on the minutes was refused. Judgment being entered, a notice of appeal was given. The following are the grounds of appeal:
1. The jfidge erred in charging the jury: “If you should *87conclude from the evidence that the deceased came to his death from injuries received in the collision through the negligence of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gladden v. Southern Railway CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Frankel v. KurtzDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1965
- Curlee v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1923