Case ID: sc_32/html/0592-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chiep Justice. Simpson,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 2563.
    Martin v. Columbia & Greenville R. R. Co., and Price v. Same.
    November Term, 1889.
    Plaintiffs went to a railroad station to take a regular, train, which, being late, did not stop, although waved to. They took a freight train on the same night, this train being cold and uncomfortable, and they brought their actions for damages, alleging that they were chilled with cold and exhausted from fatigue and mental distress and injury to their constitutions. The Circuit Judge (Hudson) granted a non-suit, saying ‘‘that there was no evidence whatever of any pecuniary loss to either of the plaintiffs” ; his honor saying that “the fact that plaintiff was afflicted at the end of her journey with a chill could not be taken into consideration by the jury,” under the circumstances. The appeal questions the correctness of this ruling.
    This court say: “The rule in reference to non-suits is well understood, and has been so often acted upon by this court, that it is unnecessary to repeat it fully here. It is sufficient to say, that where there is an absénce of all testimony as to any material contested fact in a case, a non-suit will ordinarily be granted. The fact of injury was a material fact here. Upon this question, we concur with the presiding judge. After a careful examination of the evidence reported, we find nothing therein pertinent to that issue. True, the parties may have been somewhat chilled and fatigued, and greatly out of temper, on account of the evening train passing them, and by being compelled to wait for the night train; but there is no evidence of any pecuniary damage or of any personal injury resulting in any loss whatever to any of the parties. There was nothing really to go to the jury. The Circuit Judge states his reasons for granting the non-suits. We think they are entirely satisfactory, and fully sustain his orders.”
    Judgment affirmed.
    March 8, 1890.
    
      S. Wilson, for appellants.
    
      Duncan ¿r Sanders, contra.
   Opinion by

Mr. Chiep Justice. Simpson,