Pearson v. County of Spartanburg

Citations

• 51 S.C. 480
• 29 S.E. 193
• 1898 S.C. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>1. Highways — Bridges—Damages—Evidence.—In an action under sec. 1169, Rev. Stat., against county for negligence in keeping a bridge in repair, and damages for an engine falling through, testimony as to loss of time by plaintiff and that of employees is inadmissible, because not actual damages.</p> <p>2. Evidence. — The admission of evidence upon a fact not in issue is harmless error.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Highway—Bridges — Damages — Contributory Negligence.' — In an action against county under Rev. Stat. 1169, for injury to engine in falling through bridge, admissions of county superintendent to plaintiff tending to show condition of bridge is admissible to show due diligence by plaintiff, and want of contributory negligence.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Ibid.—Ibid.—In an action against a county, under Rev. Stat. 1169, for damages to engine in falling through a bridge, it is proper to show previous condition of bridge.</p> <p>5. An Exception which does not state upon what ground testimony is objectionable, will not be considered.</p> <p>6. Charge. — The law applicable to an action under a statute may be correctly charged by reading the statute, and the party not making specific requests cannot complain.</p> <p>7. Exceptions containing quotations from charge, and not indicating in what particular such quotations are erroneous, will not be considered.</p>