Molair v. Railway Co.

Citations

• 31 S.C. 510
• 10 S.E. 243
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 62

Syllabus

<p>1. Under the act of 1878 (16 Stat., G98), and section 345 of the Code, construed together, notice of appeal from an order, decree, or judgment, must be given in writing within ten days after the rising of the court, if such order, &c., was rendered during term time, or within ten days after notice of a decree, &c., rendered during vacation. Notice of appeal given within ten days after entry of judgment on a verdict rendered in term time, but more than ten days after the rising of the court, was sufficient.</p> <p>2. The Circuit Judge is without jurisdiction to hear a motion on the minutes for a new trial after the term has ended.</p> <p>3. The presumption of negligence having attached to a railroad company from the mere fact of killing stock on its road, the trial judge did not err in then charging the jury, that if a rule, establishing a rate of 18 miles an hour, was not reasonable, it was negligence to have such a rule, or if the train was not run as a reasonable and prudent man would have run it, it was negligence; the meaning of this charge being that whether this regulation could overthrow the negligence presumptively proven, would depend upon whether the regulation wras reasonable, and had been prudently enforced. Mr. J ustice McIver, dissenting.</p> <p>4. Where the Circuit Judge called the jury’s attention to the existence of the stock law, but did not charge a correct legal proposition applicable to the case under the stock law, as contained in the syllabus of a case handed to the judge with a request to charge it, and no more formal request was made, — no ground exists for an exception. Mr. Justice McIver, dissenting.</p> <p>Only result concurred in.</p>