Case ID: sc_103/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Watts.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9285
    WEINRAUB v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
    (87 S. E. 1009.)
    Carriers of Goods — Actions for Penalty for Delay — Proof.—The value of the goods shipped, which limits the amount of penalty recoverable under Civil Code 1912, secs. 2568 and 2569, for delay in transportation of freight need not be proven by plaintiff in action under the statute.
    Footnote. — As to proviso, in penal statute, see Mills v. Kennedy, 17 S. C. L. (1 Bail.) 19.
    Before Hon. F. T. Willcox, special Judge, Abbeville, October, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Action by H. Weinraub against Southern Railway Company. ' From judgment of the Circuit Court modifying judgment rendered by magistrate, defendant appeals. It does not appear in the case how the point, as to failure of proof of value of goods shipped, was made before either the magistrate or Circuit Judge. The other facts are stated in the .opinion.
    
      Mr. J. Moore Mars, for appellant,
    submits : Penal statutes are strictly construed: 81 S. C. 167; 82 S. C. 242; 91 S. C. 377. Penalty limited to value of goods: 82 S. C. 180. Plaintiff must prove all requirements of statute: 30 Cyc. 1358.
    
      Mr. Wm. N. Gray don, for respondent.
    February 29, 1916.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was an action for damages in the magistrate’s Court for failure to comply with the provisions of secs. 2568 and 2569, Code of Taws of South Carolina, vol. I, to deliver promptly a shipment of clothing from Charleston, S. C., to Calhoun Falls, S. C. The cause resulted in the magistrate’s Court in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $25.00% An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, and heard by the Hon. F. L. Willcox, special presiding Judge, who reduced the verdict to $20.00. After entry of judgment defendant appeals, and by three exceptions alleges error and seeks reversal.

At the hearing the appellant abandoned the first exception.

The two exceptions allege error on the part of the Court in not dismissing the complaint, as there was a failure to prove the value of the goods by the plaintiff, and no evidence to sustain the verdict. The exceptions are overruled. The case of Muckenfuss Mfg. Co. v. Railway Co., 82 S. C. 180, 63 S. E. 747, conclusively settles this point against the appellant’s contention. -

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Gage concur in the opinion announced by Mr. Justice Watts.

Mr. Justice Hydrick concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice Fraser concurs in the result for.the reasons that neither the bill of lading nor its contents appear in the record, and it may show the necessary facts.