Case Name: BECK v. NORTHWESTERN R. R. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1913-07-30
Citations: 95 S.C. 339
Docket Number: 8629
Parties: BECK v. NORTHWESTERN R. R. CO.
Judges: Mr. Justice Hydrick concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 339–342

Head Matter:
8629
BECK v. NORTHWESTERN R. R. CO.
Amending Pleadings — Discretion—Answer.—A Circuit Judge has the power to permit an answer of a railroad company in a suit for damages for taking the soil of another, in which it claims the right to the soil, to be amended to set up that the soil was removed by an independent contractor as there is no abuse of discretion shown here.
Divided Gourt.
Before Wirson, J., Sumter, October, 1912.
Affirmed.
Action by Julia V. Beck against Northwestern Railroad Company. Plaintiff appeals.
Messrs. L. D. Jennings and R. D. Epps, for appellant,
cite: As to amendment: 74 S. C. 236; 80 S. C. 213; 81 S. C. 574; 91 S. C. 51. As to abuse of discretion: 47 S. C. 498; 92 S. C. 33.
Messrs. Lee & Moise and Purdy & Bland, contra,
cite: As to amendment: 81 S. C. 578; 30 S. C. 575; 74 S. C. 236; 30 S. C. 564; 53 S. C. 577, 259. As to abuse of discretion: 92 S. C. 297; 31 S. C. 378.
July 30, 1913.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an appeal from an order allowing the defendant to amend its answer in certain particulars.
The exceptions raise two questions, the first of which is whether his Honor, the Circuit Judge, had the power to allow the amendments.
The case of Taylor v. R. R., 81 S. C. 574, 62 S. E. 1113, which has been affirmed in numerous subsequent cases, is conclusive of this question, and shows that the exceptions raising this question cannot be sustained.
The next question is whether there was an abuse of discretion.
The appellant has failed to satisfy this Court that there was error in this respect, and the exceptions raising this question are also overruled.
Appeal dismissed.