Court Opinion

ID: 9826109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:22:16.814256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:50.955008
License: Public Domain

*224Mr. Justice Woods.
I concur, but think something should be said as to’the refusal of the following request to charge. “I charge and instruct you that any ordinance of the city of Spartanburg’ limiting the rate of speed to ten miles an hour is unreasonable as applied to a particular place, if the evidence shows that at such particular place it was impossible for the railway company to run its train, at the speed limited in such ordinance, because if it is impossible to obey an ordinance it is unconstitutional.”
This request was earnestly pressed in argument, and it is not without appearance of fairness; but it is unsound in that it leaves out of consideration the question whether by the exercise of due care and skill the defendant railroad company could not have .so constructed its track as to> enable it to comply with the speed ordinance.