case falls within rule in South Carolina

1913Transportation is declared by the Federal statutes to embrace all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage, including "all services in connection with the receipt, delivery , elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation and refrigeration, icing, storing and handling of property transported." The words italicized indicate the reason for holding that this case falls within the rule above set out, laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co. , 226 U.S. 427 , 33 Sup. Ct. 174 , 57 L.Ed. 284 ; Adams Express Co. v.

1913Transportation is declared by the Federal statutes to embrace all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage, including “all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation and refrigeration, icing, storing and handling of property transported.” The words italicized indicate the reason for holding that this case falls within the rule above set out, laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 427 , 33 Sup. Ct. 174, 57 L.

1913Transportation is declared by the Federal statutes to embrace all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage, including "all services in connection with the receipt, delivery , elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation and refrigeration, icing, storing and handling of property transported." The words italicized indicate the reason for holding that this case falls within the rule above set out, laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co. , 226 U.S. 427 , 33 Sup. Ct. 174 , 57 L.Ed. 284 ; Adams Express Co. v.

1913Transportation is declared by the Federal statutes to embrace all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage, including "all services in connection with the receipt, delivery , elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation and refrigeration, icing, storing and handling of property transported." The words italicized indicate the reason for holding that this case falls within the rule above set out, laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co. , 226 U.S. 427 , 33 Sup. Ct. 174 , 57 L.Ed. 284 ; Adams Express Co. v.

1907Co., 69 S. C., 434, 48 S. E., 460 .

1906Co. , 69 S.C. 434 , 444 , 48 S.E., 460 , taken from 2d Sutherland on Damages, 1093; "A tort committed by mistake in the assertion of a supposed right, or without actual wrong intention, and without such recklessness or negligence as evinces malice or conscious disregard of the rights of others will not warrant the giving of damages for punishment, where the doctrine of such damage prevails." Nor am I able to see any basis for punitive damages in the dispute between the passenger and the agent as to the right to have the baggage checked through to Greenwood; each was merely asserting what he su

1954The decision of this motion depends upon whether the case falls within the principle laid down in Tucker v. Holly Hill Lumber Co. , 200 S.C. 259 , 20 S.E. (2d) 704 , and like cases, that evidence of the failure of the master to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work makes out a *70 prima facie case of negligence, or whether the action is governed by Weston v. Hillyer , 160 S.C. 541 , 159 S.E. 390 , and similar cases.

1954The decision of this motion depends upon whether the case falls within the principle laid down in Tucker v. Holly Hill Lumber Co. , 200 S.C. 259 , 20 S.E. (2d) 704 , and like cases, that evidence of the failure of the master to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work makes out a *70 prima facie case of negligence, or whether the action is governed by Weston v. Hillyer , 160 S.C. 541 , 159 S.E. 390 , and similar cases.

1954The decision of this motion depends upon whether the case falls within the principle laid down in Tucker v. Holly Hill Lumber Co. , 200 S.C. 259 , 20 S.E. (2d) 704 , and like cases, that evidence of the failure of the master to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work makes out a *70 prima facie case of negligence, or whether the action is governed by Weston v. Hillyer , 160 S.C. 541 , 159 S.E. 390 , and similar cases.

1954The decision of this motion depends upon whether the case falls within the principle laid down in Tucker v. Holly Hill Lumber Co. , 200 S.C. 259 , 20 S.E. (2d) 704 , and like cases, that evidence of the failure of the master to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work makes out a *70 prima facie case of negligence, or whether the action is governed by Weston v. Hillyer , 160 S.C. 541 , 159 S.E. 390 , and similar cases.

1953On appeal from the refusal of a Circuit Judge to grant a new trial on questions of fact, no relief can be afforded here. [Citing cases.] Of course, if there was no testimony to support the verdict, this Court would not be powerless.” See also the later decision of State v. Harvey, 220 S. C. 506, 68 S. E. (2d) 409 .

1953In this respect the case falls within the rule stated in State v. Hurt, 212 S. C. 461, 48 S. E. (2d) 313, 321 , as follows: “The learned trial Judge, who saw the witnesses, heard their testimony, and was in a better position to appraise the evidence falling from their lips, has in his discretion, refused to exercise the power vested solely in him of granting a new trial on the facts.

1925Co., 81 S. C., 354; 62 S. E., 404; Epstin v. Berman, 78 S. C., 327; 58 S. E., 1013 ; Cooper v. Railway Co., 78 S. C., 562; 59 S. E., 704 ; Hix v. Belton Mills, 69 S. C., 273; 48 S. E., 96 . 2.

1925Co., 81 S. C., 354; 62 S. E., 404; Epstin v. Berman, 78 S. C., 327; 58 S. E., 1013 ; Cooper v. Railway Co., 78 S. C., 562; 59 S. E., 704 ; Hix v. Belton Mills, 69 S. C., 273; 48 S. E., 96 . 2.

1925Co., 81 S. C., 354; 62 S. E., 404; Epstin v. Berman, 78 S. C., 327; 58 S. E., 1013 ; Cooper v. Railway Co., 78 S. C., 562; 59 S. E., 704 ; Hix v. Belton Mills, 69 S. C., 273; 48 S. E., 96 . 2.

1925We think, however, that the order did not involve the merits, and that the case falls within the rule announced in the cases of Lynch v. Spartan Mills, 66 S. C., 12; 44 S. E., 93 ; Moore v. Power Co., 68 S. C., 201; 46 S. E., 1004 ; Hughes v. Mfg.

1925Co., 81 S. C., 354; 62 S. E., 404; Epstin v. Berman, 78 S. C., 327; 58 S. E., 1013 ; Cooper v. Railway Co., 78 S. C., 562; 59 S. E., 704 ; Hix v. Belton Mills, 69 S. C., 273; 48 S. E., 96 . 2.

1925We think, however, that the order did not involve the merits, and that the case falls within the rule announced in the cases of Lynch v. Spartan Mills, 66 S. C., 12; 44 S. E., 93 ; Moore v. Power Co., 68 S. C., 201; 46 S. E., 1004 ; Hughes v. Mfg.

1913Louis etc. Railroad Co. v. Edwards , 227 U.S. 265 , 33 Sup. Ct. 262 , 57 L.Ed. 506 ; M.K.

1913Louis etc. Railroad Co. v. Edwards , 227 U.S. 265 , 33 Sup. Ct. 262 , 57 L.Ed. 506 ; M.K.

1913Transportation is declared by the Federal statutes to embrace all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage, including "all services in connection with the receipt, delivery , elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation and refrigeration, icing, storing and handling of property transported." The words italicized indicate the reason for holding that this case falls within the rule above set out, laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co. , 226 U.S. 427 , 33 Sup. Ct. 174 , 57 L.Ed. 284 ; Adams Express Co. v.

1913Transportation is declared by the Federal statutes to embrace all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage, including "all services in connection with the receipt, delivery , elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation and refrigeration, icing, storing and handling of property transported." The words italicized indicate the reason for holding that this case falls within the rule above set out, laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co. , 226 U.S. 427 , 33 Sup. Ct. 174 , 57 L.Ed. 284 ; Adams Express Co. v.

1909Under our statute the case falls within the principle so well laid down by Justice Harlan in In Re Wilson, 140 U. S., 575, 585 , 35 L.

1909Under our statute the case falls within the principle so well laid down by Justice Harlan in In Re Wilson, 140 U. S., 575, 585 , 35 L.

1909This case falls within the principle announced ini the case of Hall v. Ry., 81 S. C., 522, the syllabus of which is as follows: “Nonsuit moved on grounds of assumption of risk and contributory negligence properly refused, as the Court could not conclusively decide from the evidence that plaintiff, a freight train conductor, assumed the risk or was guilty of contributory negligence, in coupling the cars, by going between them when he could make the coupling in no other way, on account of a defective coupling appliance, in such an emergency as would justify a reasonably prudent man in going betw

1907The case falls within the principle of Bank v. Miller, 39 S. C., 175, 17 S. E., 592 , which held that when an account of a bank charging a customer with overdrafts and eight per cent, interest thereon is closed by giving a note embracing the interest charged, the note constitutes an agreement in writing to pay such interest in the sense of the statute against usury. 3 The defendant further contended that the notes sued upon were simply renewals of old notes that had matured on November 14, 1904, which were themselves renewals of previous notes, and that some of said renewal notes were tainted

1906The case falls within the rule stated in Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 40 S. C., 529, 19 S. E., 132 .

1895This conclusion is in harmony with the principles enunciated in the case of Pennoyer v. McConnaught, 140 U. S., 1 , in which the leading authorities on this subject are referred to. 2 Having reached the conclusion that the State is not an indispensable party in determining this cause of action, the next question for consideration is, whether or not the contract between the State and the defendant, relative to the 500 horse power of water power, is null and void.