Whitney Manuf. Co. v. Richmond, R. R.

Citations

• 38 S.C. 365
• 17 S.E. 147
• 1893 S.C. LEXIS 77

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — Relevancy.—The question being whether goods placed on a railroad switch, built for the delivery of freight to a manufacturing company, were delivered before the cars were unloaded, the practice of the railroad company in delivering freight out of cars at other switches, was irrelevant.</p> <p>2. Non-Suit — Delivery.—If the question of delivery be a mixed question of law and fact, it may be passed upon by the judge in a law case, on motion for non-suit, when there is no conflict of testimony.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Carriers.—A switch was built by a railroad company at the request of a manufacturing company, and for its use, where its freight was left in sealed cars. A car with cotton in it was placed on this switch, the bill of lading surrendered to the railroad company, and the freight paid, after -which the seal of the car was broken and the car partly unloaded by the consignee, without any supervision by a railroad employee, when the car and its unloaded contents were destroyed by fire. In action against the railroad company by the owner of the burnt cotton, to recover for its loss, held, that there was full proof of delivery, and no testimony of any subsequent interference by the carrier, and. therefore, a non-suit was proper.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Warehouseman.—The cotton having been delivered to the owner, the railroad company did not occupy the position of warehouseman thereafter.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Ibid.—Ibid.—The fact that the railroad company permitted the cotton to remain in its car after the delivery, did not impose any liability on this company.</p> <p>6. Railroad — Communicated Fire — Evidence.—The testimony showing that the door of the car was closed on the side towards the main line, with the wind blowing from side track to main line, and no testimony whatever to show that the fire originated from a spark of a passing locomotive, the question, whether the fire was so caused, could not have properly been submitted to the jury.</p> <p