Case ID: sc_37/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Pope,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 3005.
    Carter v. Oliver Oil Company.
    April Term, 1892.
    
      Maslcell & Verner, for appellant.
    
      Melton & Melton, contra.
    
      Held, (1) That whether the trial judge erred in refusing the motion for a new trial cannot be considered on appeal.
    (2) That in charging the jury that “the servant, the plaintiff in this action, had the right to assume, without inquiry or examination, that the appliances and instrumentalities furnished to him in his work at the ‘former’ in their mills by the defend-. ants, the Oliver Oil Company, are safe and suitable,” the trial judge charged in accordance with the law as laid down in Gunter v. Graniteville Manufacturing Company, 18 S. C., 262; Lasure v. Same, Ibid., 281; Carter v. Oliver Oil Company, 34 Id., 211; there being in the case issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff could have used other bags, had an opportunity to inspect the one used, and had absolute power over the operation of the machine in use.
    Judgment (Aldrich, J.) affirmed.
    September 26, 1892.
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Pope,

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment entered by plaintiff on the verdict of a jury on the second trial of this case, the first trial being fully reported in 34 S. C., 211. It was an action by a servant against his master, to recover damages •for an injury sustained in working a “former” machine in a cotton seed oil mill, and caused by the use of a torn bag. There was in the case an order refusing a new trial moved for, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.