Moore v. Catawba Power Co., 46 S.E. 1004 (S.C. 1904). · Go Syfert
Search
Moore v. Catawba Power Co., 46 S.E. 1004 (S.C. 1904). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rowland Warehouse Co. v. Sumter Packing Co. (sc, 1931-05-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rowland Warehouse Co. v. Sumter Packing Co.
S.C. · 1931 · confidence medium
The syllabus in that case is in these words: “A complaint alleging a spinning frame in a cotton mill was in 'such a poorly equipped and defective condition as to render it extremely hard and dangerous for the plaintiff to operate’ is not too indefinite.” The Circuit Judge refused the motion to make the complaint more definite and certain on the authority of Lynch v. Spartan Mills, 66 S. C., 12, 44 S. E., 93 , and Moore v. Columbia Power Co., 68 S. C., 201, 46 S. E., 1004 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. Orangeburg Mfg. Co.
S.C. · 1908 · confidence medium
The Circuit Judge refused the motion on the authority of Lynch v. Spartan Mills, 66 S. C., 12, 44 S. E., 93 , and Moore v. Columbia Power Co., 68 S. C., 201, 46 S. E., 1004 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moore
v.
Catawba Power Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Mar 11, 1904.
46 S.E. 1004
1904 S.C. LEXIS 19
Messrs. Geo. W. Hart and D.W. Robinson , for appellant. The former cites: 45 S.C. 280 ; 83 Ala., 381 ; 75 Wis. 224 ; 81 Wis. 358 ; 66 S.C. 487 ; 15 S.C. 456 ; 170 U.S. 670 . Mr. Robinson cites: 60 L.R.A., 630; 27 N.W., 662; 191 U.S. 26 ; 170 U.S. 665 ; 58 L.R.A., 340; 66 S.C. 487 , 13; 65 S.C. 223 ; 53 Fed.R., 306; 35 S.C. 383 ; 60. C., 73. Mr. A.G. Brice , contra, cites: 6 Ency. P. P., 265;.
Woods.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

We do not think this case can be distinguished in principle from Lynch v. Spartan Mills, 66 S. C., 12. The views there expressed are in accord with the decisions of other Courts. Monahan v. Northwestern Contracting Co., 84 Wis., 586, 54 N. W., 1025; Carey v. Ry. Co., 67 Wis., 608, 31 N. W., 163; Ry. Co. v. Templeton, 87 Tex., 42; 26 S. W., 1066; Cox v. Providence Gas Co., 17 R. I., 199, 21 Atl., 344; Preston v. R. R. Co., 64 Vt., 280, 25 Atl., 486. The motion to make the complaint more definite and certain should have been refused.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed.