Ruff v. Columbia &c. Railroad

Citations

• 42 S.C. 114
• 20 S.E. 27
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 27

Syllabus

<p>1. Nature op Motion. — A motion to require plaintiff to elect upon which cause of action he would proceed to trial is not a motion to require a severance and separation of the alleged causes of action contained in the complaint.</p> <p>2. Causes op Action — Election—Time—Oases Criticised. — An order requiring plaintiff to elect between two causes of action, cannot be objected to because made on the day of trial, (1) where no objection was then made that the motion came too late, and (2) because such order may be moved at any time before the trial commences. This case distinguished from cases in which the motion was to require more definite and certain statements in the complaint.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Amendment.—There was no error in not permitting plaintiff to amend his complaint by making it more definite and certain, where he made no motion for leave to do so; and where, the complaint having blended together two causes of action, plaintiff was required to elect between the two.</p> <p>4. Causes op Action — Nbslioence—Election.—Where a complaint alleges the killing of plaintiff’s horse by the failure of a railroad company to keep a road crossing in proper repair, and by the negligent management of its trains, and both allegations are complete in themselves, two unconnected acts of negligence are stated; and the trial judge did not err in requiring an election between the two.</p> <p>5. Negligence — Nonsuit.—-There was no evidence tending to show that the road crossing had in any way contributed to the death of plaintiff’s horse — the only issue before the jury under plaintiff’s election — and, therefore, a nonsuit was proper.</p> <p>6. Case Ciiiticised. — There is nothing in this case to bring it under the rule established by Danner’s Case, 4 Rich., 329.</p>