From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ray v. Railway Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 8, 1913
94 S.C. 303 (S.C. 1913)

Opinion

8514

April 8, 1913.

Before RICE, J., Bamberg, July, 1912. Reversed.

Action by S.S. Ray against Southern Ry. Co. in court of magistrate S.G. Ray. Defendant appeals.

Messrs. B.L. Abney and F.F. Carroll, contra, cite: Plaintiff must recover whole amount of claim filed to entitle him to penalty: 83 S.C. 209, 470; 72 S.C. 483; 80 S.C. 524; 82 S.C. 307, 375; 89 S.C. 419.

Mr. J. Wesley Crum, Jr., contra, cites: As to the construction of the penalty statute: 36 Cyc. 1106, 1128, 1137, 1162. Freight is not necessary part of claim: 73 S.C. 542.


April 8, 1913. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant railroad company for $4.65, the value of three pairs of shoes, lost in transit from St. Louis, Missouri, to Denmark, South Carolina, and thirty-six cents freight thereon. Upon the failure of the carrier to pay the claim within forty days, the plaintiff brought this action in a magistrate's court for $4.65 and the statutory penalty of $50.00, without including the item of thirty-six cents for freight. The defendant offered to allow judgment for $4.65, the value of the goods, but contended that the penalty could not be recovered, since the amount sued for was less than the amount of the claim filed. The Circuit Court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate for $4.65 and the statutory penalty.

We think this was clearly error. The statute provides as a condition of the recovery of the penalty that the plaintiff shall recover the full amount of his claim. As the plaintiff could not recover under this complaint the full amount of his claim, he could not recover the penalty. Price v. Charleston W.C. Ry. Co., 93 S.C. 576.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Ray v. Railway Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 8, 1913
94 S.C. 303 (S.C. 1913)
Case details for

Ray v. Railway Company

Case Details

Full title:RAY v. SOUTHERN RY. CO

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 8, 1913

Citations

94 S.C. 303 (S.C. 1913)
77 S.E. 1012

Citing Cases

Traylor v. Democratic Party

2. The fact that an under-30 candidate may not run for Lieutenant Governor does not deny the First Amendment…

Munch v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Action by W.A. Munch against Atlantic Coast line Railroad Company. From the judgment in the Magistrate's…