Watkins v. Atl. Coast Line R. R., 81 S.E. 426 (S.C. 1914). · Go Syfert
Search
Watkins v. Atl. Coast Line R. R., 81 S.E. 426 (S.C. 1914). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People of the Virgin Islands v. Stuart Gareth Drew
visuper · 2026 · signal: accord · confidence high
Hakeem, 990 F.2d at 762; accord United States v. Simmonds, 536 F.2d 827, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976) United States v. Shepherd, 511 F.2d 119, 123 (Sth Cir. 1975); State v. Flowers, 503 A.2d 1172, 1178 (Conn. 1986); Wasson, 879 P.2d at 422; State v. Bailey, 572 A.2d 544, 556 (Md. 1990).
discussed Cited "see" Lahr v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Simmons (1976), 9th Cir., 536 F.2d 827, 830 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (six-month delay); O'Neill v. State (1992), Ind.App., 597 N.E.2d 379, 381 , trans. denied (six-month delay); but see Davis v. State (1976), 32 Md.App., 318, 323 , 360 A.2d 467, 471 (delay of "slightly less than seven months” not sufficiently inordinate to trigger analysis). 4 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Walter Donald Beamon, Jr., United States of America v. Jeffrey John McMillin
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 *1015 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc.
C.D. Cal. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mehrmanesh, 652 F.2d 766, 771 (9th Cir.1980). *1047 Rule 48(b) explicitly authorizes dismissal “if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial.” This rule grants the trial court “inherent power, derived from common law, to dismiss a case for want of prosecution....” United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robert Eugene Mills and Richard Raymond Pierce (2×)
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). 9 The Sixth Amendment speedy trial provision applies when a defendant is "accused." United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788-89 , 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2047-48 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 459 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jack Moody Stricklin, Jr.
5th Cir. · 1979 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 833 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976); United States v. Correia, 531 F.2d 1095, 1097 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Clay, 481 F.2d 133, 135 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1009 , 97 S.Ct. 371 , 38 L.Ed.2d 247 (1973); United States v. Beidler, 417 F.Supp. 608, 616 (M.D.Fla.1976).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. McLemore
E.D. Mich. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See U. S. v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1976), cert, denied 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 ; U. S. v. Stoker, 522 F.2d 576 (10th Cir. 1975); U. S. v. Furey, 514 F.2d 1098 (2d Cir. 1975); U. S. v. Clay, 481 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1973), cert, denied 414 U.S. 1009 , 94 S.Ct. 371 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stein v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Additionally, the court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 331 , 594 F.2d at 830 ; see also Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776, 782 (Fed.Cir.) (The “court does not function as ‘a sort of super Correction Board.’” (quoting Reale v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 1010 , 1013, 529 F.2d 533 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976))), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941 , 109 S.Ct. 365 , 102 L.Ed.2d 355 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McClellan v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 331 , 594 F.2d at 830 ; see also Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776, 782 (Fed.Cir.) (The “court does not function as ‘a sort of super Correction Board.’ ” (quoting Reale v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 1010 , 1013, 529 F.2d 533 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976))), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941 , 109 S.Ct. 365 , 102 L.Ed.2d 355 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Jamestown v. Snellman
N.D. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 836 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). [¶ 12] While the district court’s order of dismissal states the cases were dismissed on the basis the City was not ready to proceed, the order contains no mention of a violation of a specific rule or statute.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zavislak v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Reale v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 1010 , 1011, 529 F.2d 533, 534 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 129 (1976) (holding that the AFBCMR mandate requires it to correct error and injustice).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pelletier v. Warden
Conn. App. Ct. · 1993 · signal: compare · confidence low
“While prejudice in the nature of that asserted here is unfortunately present in every case of pretrial delay, general claims of anxiety are thought insufficient to invoke what has been termed ‘the unsatisfactorily severe remedy of dismissal.’ ...” (Citations omitted.) State v. Flowers, supra, 553 ; State v. Foshay, supra, 16-17 ; compare United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 831-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S. Ct. 148 , 50 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Desmond Bryan
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 837 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976); United States v. Rodriguez, 497 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1974) (both requiring balancing of factors in cases arising before applicability of Speedy Trial Act).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James Leroy Cain v. Steve Smith, Steven L. Beshear
6th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827, 831 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 854 , 97 S.Ct. 148 , 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). (6 month delay sufficient to trigger further balancing for forging and uttering treasury check); United States v. Johnson, 579 F.2d 122 (1st Cir. 1978) (8 month delay sufficient for bail jumping); United States v. Fay, 505 F.2d 1037, 1039 (1st Cir. 1974) (9 month delay sufficient for conspiracy to distribute cocaine); Tucker v. Wolff, 581 F.2d 235, 237 (9th Cir. 1978) (9 month delay “a long wait for simple burglary case”); United States v. *382 Avalos, 541 F.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Watkins
v.
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co.
8798.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 20, 1914.
81 S.E. 426
Mr. L.D. Lide , for appellant, cites: Declarations of alleged agent inadmissible: 39 S.C. 444 , 535 ; 72 S.C. 251 ; 46 S.C. 81 ; 57 S.C. 142 ; 49 S.C. 356 . Judgment of another State: 63 S.C. 542 . Punitive damages: 147 U.S. 101 ; 37 L. ed. 97 . Messrs W.F. Stackhouse and A.F. Woods , for respondent, cite: Testimony received without objection: 51 S.C. 282 ; 53 S.C. 360 ; 67 S.C. 180 . Record of conviction in criminal Courts of another State irrelevant: 3 Strob. 546;; 57 L. ed. (U.S.) 1545; 48 L. ed. (U.S.) 268.
Watts, Hydrick, Gage.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

The opinion of the Court was- delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was an action for actual and punitive damages for an alleged unlawful ejection from a train by the defendant of the plaintiff, a passenger, and was tried at Marion, S. C., 'at the April term of Court, 1913, before Judge Rice and a jury. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars. Before the case was submitted to the jury, and when all the evidence was in, the defendant moved the Court to direct a verdict in its favor as to punitive damages, on the ground that there was no’ evidence to support the same. This was refused. After verdict a motion for a new trial was made and -refused. After entry of judgment defendant appeals. The first exception is as. follows: “Because his Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in refusing defendant’s motion to- strike out the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness, Stallings., to the effect that one Boat-right attempted to- bribe or improperly influence him, in that there was no evidence that Boatright was an agent of the defendant, or that the defendant subsequently ratified his acts, and the refusal to strike out such testimony was highly prejudicial to'the defendant; and in refusing to. grant defendant’s motion for a new trial, upon the same ground; and in holding that the refusal to strike out said testimony was n<?t prejudicial to the defendant, in that the plain inference from the testimony of the witness, Stallings, was that the said Boatright attempted -to' bribe or improperly influence him, and in holding as an additional reason for refusing to strike out the said testimony that it was in before objection, because the fact that the -testimony of the witness was based solely upon the alleged declaration of the said Boatright did[*150] not appear until the cross-examination, when the motion to strike out was promptly made.”

The basis of this exception is that the Judge refused to strike out the testimony of the witness, Stallings, that Boat-right attempted to improperly influence him. No such conclusion could be drawn from his evidence, as a careful examination of it will show, and the evidence was received without objection, no motion was made to' exclude or strike it out until after cross-examination. He was- allowed to say that he thought Boatright was the agent of the Atlantic Coast Bine Railroad, without objection, and later said, that Boatright told him that he was. A statement of a person that he is the agent of another is not in itself sufficient to prove agency, but it is competent as a circumstance to be taken in connection with other evidence to prove agency. It was for the jury to' say, under all the circumstances proven, whether Boatright was a volunteer, acting for himself, or the defendant, or some one else. There was a scintilla of evidence that he was the agent of the defendant, in, seme capacity or other, sufficient for the jury to- determine whether he was or not. It was within the ppwer of the defendant to have rebutted the evidence that he was the agent of the defendant, and shown that he was- not; but the defendant failed to rebut, deny, or explain, when it introduced evidence, his connection, if any, with the case. Evidence introduced, without objection, becomes pertinent and cannot be stricken out on motion. In this case the evidence was received unobjected to, and not until cross-examination was entered into, was the motion to strike out made, and that was when witness said that he did not know who Boat-right was working for, but he told him he tos working for the defendant. \¥hile this was not sufficient to prove agency, it was a circumstance, and if connected with other evidence could establish the fact of agency it would have been competent. As it was received without objection, we think his Honor was not in error. Ingram v. Sumter Music [*151] House, 51 S. C. 282, 28 S. E. 936. Objection for the purpose of taking an exception must be made to- the testimony when offered. Powers v. Oil Co., 53 S. C. 360, 31 S. E. 276. “Objection cannot be made to evidence after its admission without objection.” Kiddell v. Bristow, 67 S. C. 180, 45 S. E. 174. We do not see how this evidence was prejudicial in any way to the defendant, and it is overruled.

Exception two is overruled, as the witness never answered the question excepted to1, and his Honor did not rule that the question was competent; the following took place at the trial: “Q. Was H. O. Harvell a witness against you in this whiskey case that has just been tried? Defendant objects, on the ground that there has been no evidence that H. O. Harvell was an agent of the Atlantic Coast Line, and on the further ground that the plaintiff cannot attack a judgment of a sister State. The Court (addressing plaintiff’s attorneys) : ‘Are you trying to attack a judgment of the Courts of North Carolina?’ Mr. Woods: We are not trying to do anything of the kind. We are simply asking him if a witness in the case was not now an employee of the Atlantic Coast Line. The Court: This judgment has not been offered in evidence as far as I recall. No judgment has been introduced" as I recall.” It appears that certain records were then, introduced and the motion to strike out overruled, but the question asked was never answered, and the exception was clearly based on a misapprehension as to what occurred. Even if the question had been answered it would have been harmless and could not have probably affected the issues in this case. This exception is overruled.

The third exception is as follows: “Because his Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in refusing defendant’s motion for nonsuit as to punitive damages, on the ground that there was no evidence whatever of wilfulness on the part of the defendant, and in charging the jury that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover punitive damages, if the plaintiff was unlawfully ejected from a train, although[*152] there was no- evidence of wilfulness, or wantonness in the case; and in charging the jury that punitive damages will be awarded for any intentional ejectment of a person from a passenger train, if such ejection is unlawful, when the testimony of the plaintiff was that he was. an interstate passenger traveling on an interstate train, and that he was ejected therefrom by the conductor, in that, under the law as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States., which controls in such a case, such ejection by a conductor would not render the defendant liable for punitive damages in the absence of evidence, of which there was none, that such action on the part of the conductor was participated in, authorized or ratified by some officer of the defendant having executive power.”

This exception is overruled, as the point, he was an interstate passenger, on an interstate train, with an interstate ticket, was not made before the Court below, either in a motion to grant a nonsuit, or to- direct a verdict, or request to- charge. Neither was. it plead by way of defense in the answer of defendant. There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to punitive damages-under the law, as decided in Myers v. Railway, 64 S. C. 514, 42 S. E. 598; Richardson v. Railway, 71 S. C. 444, 51 S. E. 444; Tollerson v. Railway, 88 S. C. 7, 70 S. E. 311; Smith v. Railway, 88 S. C. 421, 70 S. E. 1057, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 708; Corley v. Ry., 89 S. C. 432, 71 S. E. 1035; Campbell v. Railway, 94 S. C. 105, 77 S. E. 745. This exception is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Hydrick concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Gage did not sit in this case.