Holman v. City of Orangeburg
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by E. V. Holman against the City of Orangeburg. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. submit: Under the evidence, we have proven that the street was obstructed and that it was in an unsafe condition; and zvhenever such evidence appears in a case of this kind, it is a question to be submitted to the jury: 88 S. E. 463 (S. C.) ; 78 S. E. 23 (S. C.); 89 S. C. 511; 72 S. E. 228; 36 E. R. A. (N. S.) .363; 71 S. C. 170; SO S. E. 776; 66 S. C. 42; 45 S. E. 8; 92 S.…
Read the full summary
Action by E. V. Holman against the City of Orangeburg. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. submit: Under the evidence, we have proven that the street was obstructed and that it was in an unsafe condition; and zvhenever such evidence appears in a case of this kind, it is a question to be submitted to the jury: 88 S. E. 463 (S. C.) ; 78 S. E. 23 (S. C.); 89 S. C. 511; 72 S. E. 228; 36 E. R. A. (N. S.) .363; 71 S. C. 170; SO S. E. 776; 66 S. C. 42; 45 S. E. 8; 92 S. E. 191 (S. C.); 89 S. C. 520; 72 S. E. 229; . 36 E. R. A. (N. S.) 363; 104 S. C. 229; 88 S. E. 463; 91 S. C. 203; 65 S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
Action for tort to the person; nonsuit; appeal by the plaintiff.
The particular delict alleged, and that to which the testimony was directed, was the maintenance by the city of. an abandoned water “cut-off” on and nearly midway a pave.ment of one of its principal streets.
The testimony tends to show that the cut-off is two or three inches in diameter; it protrudes two or three inches above the face of the pavement; it has so existed more than 10 years; the obstruction had been reported to the city 'government, and its removal asked for;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Aughtry v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1919
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rowland v. Town of DillonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
- Coffee v. Anderson CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1954