Springs, Heath & Co. v. South Bound R. R.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Earle, J., Columbia, spring term, 1895. Action by Springs, Heath & Co. against the South Bound Railroad for damages to a lot of cotton on account of negligent handling. Commenced February 15, 1894. Judgment for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Before Earle, J., Columbia, spring term, 1895. Action by Springs, Heath & Co. against the South Bound Railroad for damages to a lot of cotton on account of negligent handling. Commenced February 15, 1894. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, upon the following exceptions: 1. Because his honor overruled defendant’s objection to the fourth interrogatary propounded to the witness, Ober. 2. Because his honor overruled defendant’s objection to the use by the witness, Ober, of the paper referred to in the fourth interrogatory to refresh his memory, because it does not appear by whom the slip…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The plaintiffs are cotton buyers in this State, and, as such, shipped over the defendant railroad to the city of Savannah, Georgia, 171 bales of cotton, in two separate lots — one lot containing 110 bales and the other 61 bales, arriving at destination about 28th February, 1893.
The defendant stood the cotton bales up on the end of the bales, exposed to the weather, from 28th February, 1893, until the 23d of April, 1893, at which time they were shipped by the steamer D. H. Miller to the city of Baltimore, where they arrived on 25th…
2Cited by4 opinions
- New York Lubricating Oil Co. v. PuseyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Hagins v. Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Jonesville Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Burress v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908