natural presumption in South Carolina

1960The case in hand is within the principle announced and applied in Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, 196 S. C. 97, 12 S. E. (2d) 839 , that there is a natural presumption, or a presumption of fact, that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty, or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be, is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.

1951Appellant further contends that under the board power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. , 196 S.C. 97 , 12 S.E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. , 215 S.C. 41 , 53 S.E. (2d) 879 ; Jordan v

1951Appellant further contends that under the board power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. , 196 S.C. 97 , 12 S.E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. , 215 S.C. 41 , 53 S.E. (2d) 879 ; Jordan v

1951Appellant further contends that under the board power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. , 196 S.C. 97 , 12 S.E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. , 215 S.C. 41 , 53 S.E. (2d) 879 ; Jordan v

1951Appellant further contends that under the board power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. , 196 S.C. 97 , 12 S.E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. , 215 S.C. 41 , 53 S.E. (2d) 879 ; Jordan v

1951The court said: “Appellant further contends that under the broad power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. [et al], 196 S. C. 97, 12 S. E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co., 215 S. C. 41, 53

1951Appellant further contends that under the board power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. , 196 S.C. 97 , 12 S.E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. , 215 S.C. 41 , 53 S.E. (2d) 879 ; Jordan v

1951Appellant further contends that under the board power and authority to act for his employer that he was following the most direct route to posting the mail and that there is a natural presumption or presumption of fact that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty or found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of and as a consequence of the employment, and relies upon Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. , 196 S.C. 97 , 12 S.E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. , 215 S.C. 41 , 53 S.E. (2d) 879 ; Jordan v

1962To' overcome this presumption, and to establish its character as a mortgage, the cases all agree that the evidence must be clear, unequivocal and convincing, for otherwise the natural presumption will prevail.” See: Howard v. Steen, 230 S. C. 351, 95 S. E. (2d) 613 ; Evans v. Evans, 226 S. C. 451, 85 S. E. (2d) 726 ; Jones v. Eichholz et al., 212 S. C. 411, 48 S. E. (2d) 21 .

1962To' overcome this presumption, and to establish its character as a mortgage, the cases all agree that the evidence must be clear, unequivocal and convincing, for otherwise the natural presumption will prevail.” See: Howard v. Steen, 230 S. C. 351, 95 S. E. (2d) 613 ; Evans v. Evans, 226 S. C. 451, 85 S. E. (2d) 726 ; Jones v. Eichholz et al., 212 S. C. 411, 48 S. E. (2d) 21 .

1962To' overcome this presumption, and to establish its character as a mortgage, the cases all agree that the evidence must be clear, unequivocal and convincing, for otherwise the natural presumption will prevail.” See: Howard v. Steen, 230 S. C. 351, 95 S. E. (2d) 613 ; Evans v. Evans, 226 S. C. 451, 85 S. E. (2d) 726 ; Jones v. Eichholz et al., 212 S. C. 411, 48 S. E. (2d) 21 .

1961Cokeley v. Robert Lee, Inc., 197 S. C. 157, 14 S. E. (2d) 889 ; Gurley v. Mills Mill, 225 S. C. 46, 80 S. E. (2d) 745 .” There is a natural presumption, or a presumption of fact, that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty, or found injured where his duty required him to be, is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, his employment. *437 So where a night watchman is found dead in a place where he may reasonably be expected to be, the natural presumption arises that his death occurred out of and in the course of his employment.

1961Cokeley v. Robert Lee, Inc., 197 S. C. 157, 14 S. E. (2d) 889 ; Gurley v. Mills Mill, 225 S. C. 46, 80 S. E. (2d) 745 .” There is a natural presumption, or a presumption of fact, that one charged with the performance of a duty and injured while performing such duty, or found injured where his duty required him to be, is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, his employment. *437 So where a night watchman is found dead in a place where he may reasonably be expected to be, the natural presumption arises that his death occurred out of and in the course of his employment.

1955In order for Appellant to prevail in his contention, he must overcome the presumption that the instrument is what it purports on its surface to be — an absolute conveyance of the land — and such presumption must be overcome by evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and convincing; otherwise, the natural presumption will prevail, Petty v. Petty, 52 S. C. 54, 29 S. E. 406 .

1951In the instant case, there is no showing that deceased was engaged in doing what was necessary to .bring the mail to the mailbox or in anywise about the business of .the Nehi *56 Bottling Company when he entered the laundry, and the presumption which had followed him was no longer in existence when he stopped his truck and entered the premises of the laundry for reasons unknown.” In the case of Hines v. Pacific Mills, 214 S. C. 125, 51 S. E. (2d) 383 , it is stated that where the evidence is all one way or points in only one direction, it must be accepted by the fact-finding body, and cannot b

1941Co. v. Kiker, 45 Ga. App., 706 , 165 S. E., 850, 851 , the Georgia Court of Appeals said: “So where a night watchman is found dead in a place where he might reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his duties, the natural presumption arises that his death occurred out of and in the course of his employment.” In the North Carolina case of Goodwin v. Bright, 202 N. C., 481 , 163 S. E., 576, 577 , it was held that where the evidence showed that an employee, to wit, a fireman, while performing duties as such at a planing mill, was shot and killed by a robber, he met his death by accident

1941Co. v. Kiker, 45 Ga. App., 706 , 165 S. E., 850, 851 , the Georgia Court of Appeals said: “So where a night watchman is found dead in a place where he might reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his duties, the natural presumption arises that his death occurred out of and in the course of his employment.” In the North Carolina case of Goodwin v. Bright, 202 N. C., 481 , 163 S. E., 576, 577 , it was held that where the evidence showed that an employee, to wit, a fireman, while performing duties as such at a planing mill, was shot and killed by a robber, he met his death by accident

1941Co. v. Kiker, 45 Ga. App., 706 , 165 S. E., 850, 851 , the Georgia Court of Appeals said: “So where a night watchman is found dead in a place where he might reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his duties, the natural presumption arises that his death occurred out of and in the course of his employment.” In the North Carolina case of Goodwin v. Bright, 202 N. C., 481 , 163 S. E., 576, 577 , it was held that where the evidence showed that an employee, to wit, a fireman, while performing duties as such at a planing mill, was shot and killed by a robber, he met his death by accident

1941Co. v. Kiker, 45 Ga. App., 706 , 165 S. E., 850, 851 , the Georgia Court of Appeals said: “So where a night watchman is found dead in a place where he might reasonably be expected to be in the performance of his duties, the natural presumption arises that his death occurred out of and in the course of his employment.” In the North Carolina case of Goodwin v. Bright, 202 N. C., 481 , 163 S. E., 576, 577 , it was held that where the evidence showed that an employee, to wit, a fireman, while performing duties as such at a planing mill, was shot and killed by a robber, he met his death by accident

1929Mordecai v. Canty, 86 S. C., 470, 68 S. E., 1049 .