Skip to main content
· 3/9/1896

Springs, Heath & Co. v. South Bound R. R.

Citations

  • 46 S.C. 104
  • 24 S.E. 166
  • 1896 S.C. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>1. Exception. — A party objecting on the trial to the introduction of a memorandurp as evidence, cannot in this court change his objection to the use of it by witness to refresh his memory, and have such latter objection considered by this court.</p> <p>2. Evidence. — It is not error to admit in evidence a statement made out by a public cotton weigher, at the time of weighing, of the exact weight of each bale of cotton weighed by him, when the weight of the cotton is an issue in the case.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Memorandum—Witness.—A witness may refresh his memory from a memorandum made out by another, if, after inspection, he can speak of his own knowledge and recollection.</p> <p>4. Nonsuit is improper where there is any evidence on the issues raised.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — It is proper to refuse a motion for nonsuit in an action for damages for negligence in handling cotton, where there is testimony to show that damaged cotton had to be picked from the bales, even where there was no evidence as to damage in quality, and where the weights, after picking, exceeded the weights on bills of lading, when it is shown that weights on the bills of lading were estimated.</p> <p>6. Railroad — Liability.—Railroads cannot limit their liabilty for negligence by any stipulations in their bills of lading.</p> <p>1. Ciiarge. — It is not error in a Circuit Judge, on the trial of a case for negligence in storing cotton in the State of Georgia, to say to the jury: “Did they put it in a place of safety when it reached Savannah? Did they carefully keep the cotton — preserve it? If they did not, they, under the laws of the State of Georgia, would be liable for any damages resulting.”</p> <p>8. Ibid. — In view of the laws of Georgia, that the railroad was required to safely keep freight until demand of the shipper, it was proper for the Circuit Judge to refuse to charge, as matter of law, whether or not two months delay on the part of the plaintiff after the arrival of the goods in Savannah

Judges: Pope

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.