Felder v. Columbia & Greenville Railroad
Citations
- 21 S.C. 35
- 1884 S.C. LEXIS 69
Syllabus
<p>1. The complaint alleged that plaintiff purchased at A a through ticket to C, over railroad lines E and F, and on the route lost her trunk, for which she demanded damages of F. Held, that in failing to allege that E and F were joint contractors, or that the trunk had been received by F, the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.</p> <p>2. The sale of a through ticket over two or more connecting lines of railroad is not evidence of a joint contract between such roads whereby one should become responsible for the default of another.</p> <p>3. In action against a railroad company for the value of a trunk lost on a connecting lino before it reached the defendant’s road, a nonsuit was properly ordered, there being no evidence of a joint contract between the two railroads.</p> <p>4. This case distinguished from Bradford v. South Carolina Railroad, Company, 7 Rich., 201.</p> <p>Mr. Justice McGowan concurred in the result.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding modification by course of conduct where party accepted imperfect performance without objection
- “Where the terms in a contract are not ambiguous, courts are constrained to apply the plain language of the contract.”
- to resolve ambiguities, court looked to practical construction by the parties
- to resolve ambiguities, court looked to practical construction by the parties
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Chiee, Generally, McIver, Only, Simpson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.