Volume 65 — South Carolina Reports

Before Benet, J., Richland, April term, 1900. Action by Alice E. Oliver and P. M. Oliver, her husband, against Columbia, Newberry and Raurens Railroad Company. Erom judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals on the following exceptions: “1.

Before Gary, J., York, November, 1901. Action by Jennie E. Hutchison and B. P. Reid against The Rock Hill Real-Estate and Loan Co.… Held: witness knew nothing of it and was not present.’ A. H. White, another director, upon being asked whether or not a meeting was held and passed the resolution exhibit ‘BD,’ answered, ‘No, sir; and no such meeting was ever held to my knowledge;’ and the same witness, upon being asked whether or not he attended the meeting in March, at…

Petition in the original jurisdiction of this Court by Wm. Held: but because there was no survey and designation of the boundary lines prior to said election, it was impossible for the managers always to tell with accuracy which voters in the vicinity of said boundaries were within and which without the limits of the proposed new county. “8.

<p>Appeal- — -“Case.”—A “skeleton” “case” is a sufficient “proposd case” for appeal.</p>

<p>Before Aldrich, J., Richland, July, 1902.</p> <p>• Action by Thomas C. Young, against Western Union Telegraph Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p> <p>Messrs. Smythe, Lee & Frost cite: As to evidence showing physical discomfort: 32 S. C., 592; 9 Ech., 345; 154 U. S., 29; 43 S. C., 424; 8 Ency., 2 ed., 581, 583; 54 S. W., 825; 31 Fed., 134; 81 Fed., 670; 5 Ency. P. & P., 544, 603. There being no evidence warranting exemplary damages nonsuit should have been granted: 61 S. C., 170; 64 S. C., 491; 60 S. C., 74; 54 S. C., 605; 57 S. C., 254; 35 S. C., 486, 501. As to the sixty days condition: 25 Ency., 1 ed., 798; 21 Wall., 264- 154 U. S-, 1; 42 S. C., 368; 14 S. E. R., 94; 11 S. E. R., 874; 18 S. E. R., 1008; 27 S. E. R., 603; 4 S. R., 844; 54 Ark., 221; 65 N. Y., 165; 27 S.' E. R., 312; 11 Col., 335; 19 S. W., 256; 26 S. C., 96; 62 S. C., 1; 39 S. E. R., 443.</p> <p>cite: As to evidence of physical discomfort: 53 S. C., 214; 54 S. C., 498. As to nonsuit on ground of failure of facts warranting exemplary damages: 57 S. C., 228; 62 S. C., 335. When written contract is not in evidence, terms thereof are for jury: 62 S. C., 1; 26 S. C., 268.</p>

<p>Before Gary, J., Edgeefild, May, 1902.</p> <p>Action by J. R. Blackwell et al. against British American Mortgage Company, L. T. and Mollie P. Plarmon, and Twin City Power Company. From Circuit decree plaintiffs and the two corporations, defendants, appeal. Plaintiffs on following exceptions:</p> <p>“1st. Excepts because the Judge erred in not holding that under the agreement between Harmon and Josephine Blackwell she was bound to pay back to Harmon whatever of the loan she received, and that she did pay said sum to him before her death, and before Plarmon made the deed to the British American Mortgage Company, Limited, and that the British and American Mortgage Company had notice of it, or if it did not it was the company’s own fault.</p> <p>“2d. Excepts because his Honor erred in holding that out of the plaintiff’s one-half interest in the 1,309 acre tract of land must be paid $1,286.66 to British and American Mortgage Company, Limited, when he ought to have held that the evidence shows that Josephine Blackwell had paid all she owed before her death to L. T. Harmon, and the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited, had notice, or ought to have known it, before it took and accepted Harmon’s deed to the land.”</p> <p>Defendants on following exceptions:</p> <p>“1. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in holding that the plaintiff, John R. Blackwell, had been duly and legally appointed the committee of the lunatic, Susie Blackwell. Whereas, it is submitted that the record in evidence of the appointment o.f such committee by the probate court for Edgefield County shows that said court had never acquired jurisdiction to make such appointment, and that such proceedings were invalid and void, in that it appears that no summons had been issued by said Court or served upon the said lunatic, and no hearing was had before the said court, and that the said Blackwell was appointed committee upon the filing of a petition without any further proceedings therein.</p> <p>“2. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in his finding of facts that Mr. A. S. Tompkins, at the time of the application by Harmon for a loan, was representing the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited. Whereas, it is submitted that the evidence shows conclusively that the said Tompkins was not at that time the agent or representing the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited, or at any time preceding the actual loan of the money to Harmon, or at the time the loan was made and the papers executed and for some time thereafter.</p> <p>“3. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred as a matter of fact in his finding that the said Tompkins drew all papers necessary to perfect the loan. Whereas, it is submitted the testimony conclusively shows that the defendant mortgage company drew its own papers, which it considered necessary to perfect the loan, and had no knowledge whatsoever of any agreement made between Josephine Blackwell and L- T. Harmon.</p> <p>“4. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in finding as a matter of fact that the said Tompkins drew the agreement set out in his decree and dated day of 1890. Whereas, it is conclusively shown by the testimony that this paper was drawn by Mr. Tompkins, but was not signed and executed by Blackwell and Harmon, or witnessed or delivered in his presence, and that he never had any knowledge or notice that such paper was so signed and executed or delivered until after the conveyance by Harmon and his wife to the mortgage company.</p> <p>“5. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in holding that the alleged agreement between E. T. Harmon and Josephine Blackwell, set out as an exhibit to the complaint, was simultaneously executed with the deed from Josephine Blackwell to E. T. Harmon of her one-half interest in the 1,309 acres of land, when the date of the two papers and all the legal evidence and facts show to the contrary.</p> <p>“6. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in finding as a matter of fact that the two transactions were made simultaneously at the suggestion and with the consent of Mr. A. S. Tompkins. Whereas, the testimony in the case conclusively shows that Mr. Tompkins had no knowledge whatsoever, until years after, of the execution of the said agreement.</p> <p>“7. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in not ruling out, on the objection of the defendant mortgage company, the evidence of John R. Blackwell (objected to by the mortgage company) as to the "statements of A. S. Tompkins. The same being an attempt to prove agency by the acts and declarations of the very person whose agency is the question at issue, and also all testimony showing any transaction between John R. Blackwell and his wife, Josephine, and all testimony of L. T. Harmon contradicting his acts under seal and his testimony as to the transaction between him and Josephine Blackwell, now dead.</p> <p>“8. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in holding as a fact that the Twin City Power Company was before the Court as simply having an option to purchase at a stated price the lands described in the complaint. Whereas, the testimony shows that the Twin City Power Company had paid on its option, and without notice of any outstanding claim or demand of the Blackwells, and had expended large sums of money in locating a water power, as set out in the testimony, which shows that the expenditure of said Twin City Power Company, relying upon the title of the mortgage company and its contract of purchase with said company, was of a much larger sum than the said purchase money.</p> <p>“9. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that A. S. Tompkins, at the time of the execution of the deed from Josephine Blackwell to L. T. Plarmon, was the agent and attorney for the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited. Whereas, it is conclusively shown by the testimony that he was not such agent, and had no dealings’ or transactions with said company, but, on the contrary, was acting as the attorney of the said L. T. Harmon.</p> <p>“10. Excepts because the presiding Judge should have held that at the time of the execution of the mortgage by L. T. Plarmon to the defendant mortgage company, it had no knowledge, notice or information whatsoever of the execution and existence of the alleged agreement between Harmon and Mrs. Blackwell, and that at the time of the execution of the said mortgage and the advancing of the money, the said Tompkins had no knowledge of the execution and delivery of such paper, and that the drafts for the $2,000 and $2,700 was prepared by A. S. Tompkins, signed by L. T. Harmon, and forwarded to Shattuck & Hoffman for Harmon to receive the proceeds thereof.</p> <p>“11. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in holding that the deed of Josephine Blackwell and the defeasance are all one transaction and. constitute a mortgage as between Josephine Blackwell and L. T. Harmon. Whereas, it is submitted that said agreement does not constitute a mortgage, but a simple contract to reconvey upon the condition therein stated.</p> <p>“IS. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in holding that L. T. Harmon, only having a mortgage over the land of Josephine Blackwell, conveyed no greater interest than he had, and having concluded that the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited, had notice of the transaction between Josephine Blackwell and L. T. Harmon, they acquired this land subject to the right of plaintiff to have the same declared a mortgage. Whereas, he should have held that as to the mortgage company, it had no notice whatsoever of the said agreement, and that the conveyance by Mrs. Blackwell to Harmon was absolute and unconditional, and conveyed all of her right and title thereto without any reservation, and that when the mortgage company received the mortgage made by Harmon covering said land, that it was in no way affected by any transaction had between Harmon and Mrs. Blackwell not expressed in said conveyance by her to him.</p> <p>“13. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in holding that the Twin City Power Company was not in a position to plead .that it is a purchaser without notice and has not paid the purchase money. Whereas, it is submitted that on account of the payment of the $1,000 and the outlay of money, without any notice whatsoever of any right of Mrs. Blackwell or her heirs or representatives to make any claim to an interest in said land, it was in a position to defend its contract as a purchaser without notice and for valuable consideration.</p> <p>“14. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in adjudging that the deed executed by Josephine Blackwell to L. T. Harmon is a mortgage, and that the deed executed by L. T. Harmon and Molly P. Harmon to the mortgage company, in so far as it purports to convey the fee simple title to the interest of Josephine Blackwell in said land, be set aside. Whereas, he should have held and adjudged that the money advanced by the defendant mortgage company, and the mortgage securing the same, was without notice of any right or claim of Mrs. Blackwell or her heirs and representatives to any interest in the 1,309 acres of land, and that the deed executed by L. T. Harmon to Molly P. Harmon was for valuable consideration, without any notice of any claim of Mrs. Blackwell, and that-at the time of the execution of the deed of conveyance made by L. T. Harmon and Mollie P. Harmon to the mortgage company it was without notice of any claim of Mrs. Blackwell, and that they conveyed a fee simple title in and to all of said land formerly owned by Mrs. Blackwell; and that the heirs and representatives of Mrs. Blackwell cannot now set up such claim as against the mortgage company and the Twin City Power Company, with whom it has a contract to sell and convey said premises.</p> <p>“15. Excepts because the presiding Judge erred in not construing the agreement between Josephine Blackwell and L. T. Harmon to be a conveyance to Josephine Blackwell of certain right for her life only, and died with her, and cannot pass to these plaintiffs, her heirs, the word ‘heirs’ nowhere occurring in said agreement after Josephine Blackwell’s name.</p> <p>“16. Because John R. Blackwell, in his own right and as administrator, and his children are estopped from objecting to the sale by L. T. Harmon and Molly P. Harmon to the said mortgage company of the land in dispute, Josephine Blackwell being at that time alive, and had notice of the sale and the existence and execution of the deed through her husband, John R. Blackwell, her agent, pending the negotiation and consummation of said sale, and no objection being made until after the death of Josephine Blackwell and until after the Twin City Power Company began to develop that section by large investments and improvements.</p> <p>“17. Excepts because the presiding Judge did not hold that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, as it appears from the filing of the complaint that none of the plaintiffs, their ancestors, predecessors or grantors, were seized and possessed of the premises in question within ten years before the commencement of this action, and that so far as the mortgage company and the power company are concerned, they and their grantors have been in adverse possession of the land in dispute for more than ten years before the commencemnt of this action.</p> <p>“18. Excepts because the presiding Judge did not hold that the $5,000 mortgage from L. T. Harmon to the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited, bearing date of the 4th day of March, 1890, being left open in the deed from Harmon to the said company, bearing date the 15th day of March, 1889, all lands embraced therein should stand good for all the said debt.</p> <p>“19. Excepts because the presiding Judge did not, upon all the testimony in the case, conclude as matter of law, and so adjudge, that the complaint should be dismissed.”</p> <p>cites: Probate court has jurisdiction of appointment of committee to lunatic: 18 S. C., 123; Code, 37. As to notice to loan company through Tompkins: 44 S. C., 483; 33 S. C., 233; 10 S. C., 388; 58 Vt., 113; 37 S. C., 89; 7 Rich. Eq.', 54; 1 Speer’s Eq., 159; 1 Ency., 419; 3 Strob. Eq., 159; 11 S. C., 408; 16 Ency., 787; 112 N. Y., 637; 115 -III, 289. Deed of Mrs. B. to H. was a mortgage: 21 S. C., 400; 1 McM. Eq., 2; 13 Rich. Eq., 222; 20 S. E. R., 591; 16 Ency., 1 ed., 793; Paw. on Mtg., 67; 20 Am. Dec., 147. As to construction of deed to reconvey: 5 Ency., 511; 20 S. C., 429; 6 S. C., 484; 59 S. C., 148. Power company is not bona fide purchaser for value: 14 S. C., 312; 6 Rich. Eq., 155; 23 S- C., 494; 2 Strob. Eq., 203. Time will not run in favor of defendant in fraud until notice to plaintiff: 120 U. S., 130; 11 Wall., 442; 13 Ency., 682.</p> <p>cites: Notice to Tompkins is notice to loan company: 44 S. C., 478. Defeasance need not bear same date as deed, but must be delivered at same time: 13 Pick., 411; 7 Watts, 401; 5 Enc}'., 1 eel., 511. Blackwell deed is a mortgage: 1 Jones on Mtg., 168; 3 Pom. Eq., 1335, 1237; 53 Ohio St, 414; 21 S. C., 400. Requisites to plea of bona fide purchaser: 14 S. C., 318, 90.</p> <p>appellants, cite: Circuit Court should have appointed committee to lunatic: 18 S. C., 123; 15 S. C., 97; Code, 155, 156. As to agency of Tompkins: 7 S. E. R., 266. Plaintiffs are es-topped from denying title: 57 S. C., 472; 47 S. C., 488. Nor can they change it by parol: 1 McM., 467; 1 Speer, 192. Agency cannot be shozvn by acts and declarations of agent: 44 S. C., 91; 39 S. C., 535. Agreement to reconvey only carried life estate of Mrs. B.: 42 S. C., 68. The loan company is an innocent purchaser for value zvithout notice: 36 S. C., 343 ; 14 S. C., 318. And specific performance will not be decreed: 1 Bail. Eq., 347; 2 DeS. Eq., 172; 24 S. C., 33; 53 S. C., 563. Plaintiffs are guilty of laches in not sooner asserting their rights: 31 S. C., 280; 24 S. C., 98; 34 S. C., 535; 20 S. C., 52; 53 S. C., 126; 22 Ency., 936, 1028, 1029. No merger having taken place, all the land must be applied to mortgage debt: 24 S. C., 18; 26 S. C., 411; 47 S. C., 299; 57 S. C., 182.</p>

Before Buchanan, J., Edgefield, March, 1902. Action of Marvin Griffin, by guardian ad litem, against Southern Railway. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Punitive damages can only be recovered once for the same wrongful act: 60 S. C., 73. cite: Plaintiff was entitled to submit acts of negligence and wilfulness to jury in one cause of action: 57 S. C., 28; 22 Stat., 693; 60 S. C., 48.

<p>Before Youmans, special Judge, Saluda, May term, 1902.</p> <p>Action in claim and delivery by M. G. Gillian against James G. Gillian. From order refusing permission to demur to complaint after default and judgment for plaintiff,. defendant appeals.</p> <p>cites: Brror for Judge not to allow oral demurrer to complaint: 5 S. C., 10; 11 S. C., 409; 17 S. C., 412; 18 S. C., 495; 24 S. 0,, 34; 29 S. C., 64. Case could not go to fury on Calendar j: Code, 276, 283.</p>

Before Watts, J., York, April, 1902. Action by W. N. Ashe, Jr., against Carolina and Northwestern Railway Company and J. R. Culp, Jr., agent. From judgment of nonsuit defendant appeals. cites: As to construction of contract: 17 Ency., 9; 14 S. C., 162; 5 Rich. R., 189; 33 S. C., 215. Any testimony pertinent to issues sends case to jury: 38 S. C., 485; 39 S.’C., 375; 40. S. C., 104; 41 S. C., 153.

<p>Before Watts, J., York, April term, 1902.</p> <p>Action by Geo. W. Brooke against W. T- Hill. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

Before Aldrich, J„ summer term, 1903, Richland. Action by Thos. J. Lipscomb against South Bound Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals on following exceptions: “1.

Before Benet, J., Hampton, October, 1901. Action by M. A. Lewis against E. M. Jones, Hampton Jones, Paul Jones and W. R. Mew. From order referring question of damages arising from injunction, plaintiff appeals. cites: Code of Civil Prac., 243; 43 'S. C., 396; High on Inj., sec. 1685; 45 S. C., 321. cites: 64 S. C., 440; 46 S. C., 4; 2 Beav., 70; 136 111., 135; 25 Miss., 253, 149; 70. Miss., 225; 37 How. Pr., 148; Fed. Cases, No. 2983; 74 Ga., 201; 7 How.

Before Watts, Lexington, February term, 1901. Action by Myrtle Edwards against Vastine Wessinger and Elizabeth Wessinger. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. cites: Testimony responsive to allegations allowed to remain in pleading admissible: 39 S. E. R., 529. Ruling and charge of Judge contrary to Con.: 29 S. E. R., 206; 49 S. C., 497; 47 S. C., 488; 49 S. C., 294, 558.

Before Gary, J., Greenwood, March term, 1902. Indictment against J. Allen Nickels for violation of dispensary law. From judgment and sentence,, defendant appeals. Mr. Grier cites: Court may direct a verdict: 7 Blatchf., 177; 19 Ala., 161; 28 la., 565; 18 N. Y., 179; 49 N. Y., 137; 6. Ency. P. & P., p. 690, n. 1; Code of Proc., 287. As to storing and keeping in possession: 63 S. C., 103.

<p>Before Ki/ugh, J., Colleton, March, 1902.</p> <p>Indictment against John O. Jaques. From order quash-ing indictment, State appeals. •</p> <p>cite: 24 S. C., 593; 52 S. C., 525.</p> <p>cite: 17 S. C., 57; 19 Ency., 506; Civil Code, 1354, 1386; Acts 1900, p. 280; 5 S. C., 124; 16 Ency., 385, and notes; 61 S. C., 186; 3 McC., 533.</p>

<p>Before Gary, J., Greenville, May, 1902.</p> <p>Indictment against Morris Switzer. From order sustaining plea of former jeopardy, State appeals on following exceptions :</p> <p>“Please take notice that, pursuant to notice duly served, the State appeals from the judgment of the Court of General Sessions made in above case at the summer term, on the following grounds:</p> <p>“1. Because the Judge erred in sustaining the foregoing plea of autrefoi acquit made by the defendant to the foregoing indictment.</p> <p>“2. Because his Honor erred in holding that the offense charged in this indictment was the same charged in the case of the State v. Morris Switzer, in which the Court at the spring term, 1902, ordered a verdict of ‘not guilty.’ ”</p> <p>Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal because the exceptions pointed out no specific error of law.</p> <p>Mr. Shuman cites: This Court has no jurisdiction to consider question of fact in law case: Con., art. I., sec. 4; 62 S. C., 377; 58 S. C., 427; 59 S. C., 560. Exceptions pointing out no speciñc error should not be considered: 24 S. C., 273; 48 S. C., 76; 45 S. C., 107; 52 S. C., 449; 62 S. C., 574; 41 S. C., 360; 41 S. C., 309; 59 S. C., 87. First indictment charges attempt to commit arson, and second indictment charges an attempt to set üre to same storehouse: Crim. Code, 143; 35 S. C., 262. On same facts series of criminal charges- cannot be preferred: 1 Bish. Cr. R., s. 1060-11; 46 S. C., 13; 11 Am. St. R., 773; 4 R. R. A., 845; 62 N. Y., 117; 60 Ala., 43. Plea of former jeopardy will be sustained, although Judge directed verdict: 1 Bish. Cr. -R., s. 1046; 4 McC., 254; 2 Tr. Con. R., 517. Plea of autrefoi acquit may not include plea of former jeopardy: 1 Bish. Cr. R., s. 1014; 47 S. C., 166; Con., art. I., sec. 17. Attempt is governed by same rules: 3 Ency., 2 ed., 250. Indictments being different, proof may show same offense: 1 Bish. Cr. R., sec. 1050. 46 S. C., 13.</p>

<p>Before Gage, J., Union, July, 1901.</p> <p>Action b)'' J. T. E. Gallman, by guardian ad litem, against Union Hardwood Manufacturing Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Before Gage, J., Darlington, February, 1901.</p> <p>Proceeding under agricultural lien by Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company against J. P. Kirven. Verdict for defendant. From order refusing new trial, plaintiff appeals.</p> <p>Messrs. Willcox & Willcox cite: This Court zvill reviezv errors of lazv in refusing new trials: 36 S. C., 586. Judge shozild set aside a verdict if there be no evidence to support it: 57 S. C., 289; 23 S. C., 231; 49 , S. C., 454; 52 S. C., 371; 54 S. C., 599; 58 S. C., 215. Respondent’s additional grounds cannot be sustained: 59 S. C., 508; 23 S. C., 105; 16 S. C., 1.</p> <p>Messrs. Woods & Macfarlan cite: Judge’s attention should have been called to issue now urged by plaintiff: 58 S- C., 223; 57 S. C., 332, 468; 59 S. C., 440, 163. Same rule applies to misstatement of evi'dence: 35 S. C., 459; 57 S. C., 335. Refusal of new trial here does not involve error of lazv: 58 S. C., 213. Damages may be set up by way of defense: 43 S. C., 63; 15 S. C., 460; 10 S. C., 185; 15 Rich., 229. Lien to plaintiff was not valid: 14 S. C., 476; 33 S. C., 237. This Court will not review evidence: 18 S. C., 570; 57 S. C., 402.</p> <p>cite: Motion addressed to discretion of Judge, and his order is final: 58 S. C, 214. Court’s attention should have been called to plaintiff’s contention during trial:'4£> S. C, 249; 59 S. C, 440; 58 S. C, 227; 57 S. C, 467. No ground for new trial that Judge does not agree with jury: 57 S. C, 289; 59 S. C, 268; 53 S. C, 215. As to additional grounds by respondent: 23 S. C, 105; 59 S. C, 508. Plaintiff had no lien by assignment: 3 S. C, 50; Bliss on Code Plead, sec. 370; 22 Wood, 155; 2 Hill, N. Y, 171; 1 Id, 484; 4 Mete.; 464; 13 Ala, 587; 4 N. E. R, 678; 10 L. R. A, 378. As to encoupment by pleading damages: 22 D. R. A, 544; 30 S. C, 126; 45 S. C, 111.</p>

<p>Before Gage, J., Greenville, January term, 1902.</p> <p>Indictment against Alexander Bowers for murder. From sentence on verdict of manslaughter, defendant appeals.</p> <p>cite: Deduction of manslaughter is erroneous: 36 S. C., 479. Judge should declare the law: 58 S. C., 92. Daw as to self-defense not properly charged: 13 S. C., 466; 32 S. C., 44; 24 S. C., 282; 29 S. C., 236.</p>

Before Watts, J., Laurens, July, 1902. Actkin by Dollie Cooper against Charleston and Western Carolina Railway Company. From judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. cites: If there was any cause of action, nonsuit should not have been granted: 61 S. C., 404, 500; 25 S. C., 53; 43 S. C., 221; Code, 1902, 2132, 2133, 2139; 1 Rorer, 552; 13 N. Y., 78. At common law, railroads must give signals in passing over highways: 10 Rich., 227; 57 S’.

Before Townsend, J., Spartanburg, June, 1902. Action by T. A. Bolin against Southern Railway Co. Prom order on motion to make complaint more definite and certain, both parties appeal. cite: Acts of negligence and wantonness may he stated in one cause of action: 22 Stat., 693; 61 S. C., 170; 64 S. C., 495; 35 S. C., 486; 42 S. C., 114; 57 S. C., 234. Complaint must state cause of action clearly enough to inform defendant whether to deny same or not: 6 Ency.

Before Purdy, J., Oconee, May, 1902. Action by W. L. Burns against Southern Railway Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cites: Complaint should have been dismissed on demurrer: 58 S. C., 491; 51 S. C., 301; 52 S. C., 443; 3 Ell. on R. R., 1169; 10 L. R. A., 58; 13 E. R. A., 634; 4 A. & E. R. R. Ca., 72; 9 Id., 876; 86 Mich.,. 79; 19 A. & E. R. R. Ca., 261; 17 Am. R., 521; 47 At., 447; Beach Con. Neg., sec. 72; 94 Ga., 332; 123 Mo., 445; 67 Vt., 177; 4 Am. Neg.

<p>Before Gage, J., Laurens, February, 1902.</p> <p>From dismissal of rule against sheriff in case of J. B. E. Sloan against R. Lee Hunter, administrator, plaintiff appeals.</p> <p>cite: Law existing when debt was contracted governs: 13 S. C., 355; 21 S. C., 126; 41 S. C., 109 ; 21 S. C., 372. When homestead fell in land became subject to jtidgment: 41 S. C., 109; Con. 1868. Acts attempting to create homestead under Con. of 1868 are unconstitutional: 11 S. C., 333; 47 S. C., 446.</p> <p>cite: As to homestead: 40 S. C., 189; 18 S. C., 601; 29 S. C., 106; 41 S. C., 116; Con. 1868, art. II., sec. 32; 15 St., 370, 371; 54 S. C., 208; 25 S. C., 98. As to lien of judgment: 15 St., 498; Code 1882, sec. 310; 32 S. C., 228; 39 S. C., 262. As to the execution: 15 S. C., 149; 16 S- C., 72; 21 S. C., 154; 5 Rich. L-, 501.</p>

Before Watts, J., Greenwood, March term, 1902. Indictment against Henry R. Williamson, Charley Snow and Anthony Reeder. Prom judgment on verdict of guilty, defendants, Williamson and Snow, now appeal. Mr. Bilis G. Graydon cites: Jurors not competent: 16 S. C., 453; 20 S. C., 444; 25 S. C., 171; 26 S. C., 198; 31 S. C., 257; 32 S. C., 45; 34 S. C., 33; 36 S. C., 504; 39 S. C., 97; 54 S. C., 147.

<p>Before Klugh, J., Beaufort, January; 1902.</p> <p>Action by First Presbyterian Church of Beaufort against Mrs.’ Meta H. Elliott. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.</p> <p>cite: Rules for construing charge: 59 S. C., 312; 15 S. C., 95; 50 S. C., 128; 28 S. C., 580; 12 S. C., Ill; 19 S. C., 91; 16 S. C., 575; 18 S. C., 232; 36 S. C., 187; 29 S. C.,161; 33 S. C., 139. What constitutes an estate on condition: 16 Gray, 322; 15 S. C., 132. They are odious: 15 S. C., 32; 12 N. Y., 131; 1 Kent. Com., 129. What is breach: 35 N. H., 115. Breach makes estate voidable: 15 S. C., 33; 16 Gray, 322. And may be waived: 16 Gray, 309; 2 Wash, on R. P., 2 ed., 19; 11 La. St., 311 ; 17 Mich., 130; 1 Johns. Cas., 125; 15 S. C., 35. Right of re-entry is not assignable: 2 Black., 155, n. 6; 1 Kent. Com., 122, and notes; 2 Ency., 2 ed., 1015, and note 1; 6 Id., 5Ó8, note 1; Will, on R. P., 202; 21 Wall., 63; 1 Smith Leading Cas., 9 ed., 119; 12 N. Y., 127; 12 Allen, 111; 7 Allen, 111; 162 Mass., 115; 16 Gray, 310; 97 U. S., 696; 11 Am. Dec., 713; 56 Id., 659; 1 Hill Ch., 271; 2 Hill, 216; McM. Eq., 231; 33 S. C., 293; 15 S. C., 32; 29 Oh., 398; 45 Me., 359; 32 Barb., 448; 16 Pa. St., 110; 13 Cal, 115; 5 Cal., 108; 20 Ga., 566; 129 111., 466; 8 Blatchf., 140; 34 Me., 339; 25 Me., 530; 11 N. Y., 323; 46 Barb., 122; U. C.- C. P., 132; 11 On., 731. No entry has been made by grantor nor his heirs: 1 Smith’s L. Cas., 101; 19 Am. Dec., 515; 6 Id., 206; 22 Id., 199; 3 Ind., 115; 15 Id., 570; 9 Bush., 202; 35 Me., 342; 58 Id., 73; 67 In., 198; 4 Gill & J., 121; 5 Mass., 321; 21 Pick., 215; 16 Gray, 309; 97 Mass., 188; 51 Miss., 112; 50 Mo. App., 197; 1 Nev., 40; 2 N. H., 120; 8 Id., 477; 36 Id., 344; 2 Rob., 489; 12 Barb., 440; 12 N. Y., 121; 97 U. S., 693; 4 Hughes, 589. Reentry necessary: 15 S. C., 35; 44 Am. Dec., 775; 45 Ind., 552. Conditions of deed discharged: 44 Am. Dec., 747; 20 Barb., 455; 53 Barb., 393; 27 Paine C. C., 545; 45 Me., 359; 12 Allen, 141; Smith Lead. Ca., 104.</p> <p>cite: If evidence is in before objection, motion to strike out is remedy: 59 S. C., 232. Grantors being in possession, no formal entry was necessary: 7 Fed. R., 634; 5 Mass., 321; 15 S. C., 34. Conditions must be performed in reasonable dime: 7 F. R., 634; 2 Mete., 495; 5 Pick., 528; 21 Pick., 215; 2 L. R. A., 526. Presumption of possession is rebuttible: 14 S. C., 35;- Lawson’s Law of Pres. Ev., 659.</p>

Before Ardrich, J., Edgefield, August, 1902. Action in magistrate court by Danforth & Carter against James A. Timmerman. From order on Circuit reversing order of magistrate sustaining demurrer, defendant appeals. cites: On main question: 2 N. & McC., 70; 27 S. C., 318; 1 Strob. Eq., 262; 1 Rich. D„ 502; Story on Ag., 193 ; Code, 149 ; 42 S. C., 511.

Before Watts, J., Union, May term, 1902. Action by Joyce Brown, administrator, against Southern Railway. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals on the following exceptions: “His Honor erred: “1. In not permitting the witness, S. T. Clowney, to testify to the statements of Martin Brown as to the efforts Brown’s children had been making in trying to get his property from him.

Before Klugh, J., Barnwell, March, 1902. Action by 'Charles H. Mathis against Southern Railway Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: For not supplying cars, carrier is responsible for unreasonable delay only: 79 Mo., 296; 5 Ency., 2 ed., 168, N.; 87 Tex., 211.

<p>1. Pleading — Real Property.- — A Complaint alleging that plaintiff “has lawful title to the following described real estate * * * and that defendants are in possession of said real estate and unlawfully withhold possession of same from plaintiff,” is not bad on demurrer as stating conclusions of law and not of'facts, but states a cause of action for possession of real property, and that damages are only referred to in prayer, does not effect the cause of action stated.</p> <p>2. Real Property — Motion to Make Definite. — If defendant desires that plaintiff should allege the nature of his title to real property sued for, his remedy is motion to make more definite.</p> <p>3. Tutt v. R. R., 28 S. C., 396; Tompkins v. R. R., 33 S. C., 217; Wallace v. R. R., 34 S. C., 62, distinguished from this.</p>

Before Gary, J., Greenwood, spring term, 1902. Indictment against Edward Norris.

Before Townsend, J, Charleston, April, 1902. Action by James and Margaret Reid against New York Life Insurance Co. From order overruling oral demurrer to complaint, defendant appeals. cite: To be legally pledged, the original and not the copy must be delivered: 2 Par. on Con, sec. 113; 18 Ency, 607; 2 Pick, 610;- 96 U. S, 467; 4 Barb, 493; 52 Barb, 374; Laws of N. Y. on Ins, ed. 1901, ch. 690, art. I.; 52 S. W. R, 958; 53 S. W. R, 182; 68 N. Y, 625; 27 S. C, 221. cite:…

Before Klugi-i, J., Colleton, March, 1902. Action by D. E. Smoak against Savannah, Florida and Western Railroad Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Evidence not competent to show custom: 22 F. R. A., 725. Declarer tions of one member of R. R. Com. incompetent: 62 S. C., 252. Degree of care due licensee: 66 N. Y-., 243 ; 37 S. F., 979. cite: Evidence of the member of railroad commission competent: 60 S. C., 237.

<p>Before Townsend, J., Greenwood, September, 1901.</p> <p>Action by Thomas J. Dyson and Mattie Williamson against Wm. W. Jones, administrator de bonis non, with will annexed, of estate of Thomas J. Dyson et al. From Circuit decree, the defendants, Wm. W. Jones and Sallie F. Jones, appeal.</p> <p>Mr. Richey cites: This matter has been adjudged by probate court: 33 S. C., 504; 52 S. C., 574; 54 S. C., 188 ; 58 S. C., 142. Testimony of Jones not in violation of sec. 400:' 21 S. C., 597; 33 S. C., 310; 41 S. C., 125. Law presumes alteration contemporaneous with execution: 12 Rich. L,., 387.</p> <p>Mr. Grier cites: Amount due on note is res judicata: 17 S. C., 189 ; 1 Hill Eq., 22; 19 S. C., 158; 21 Ency., 128, 216; Con. 1868, art. V., sec. 20; Code, 1893, sec. 40; 24 S. C., 375; 4 S. C., 163; 31 S. C., 217; 33 S. C., 504; 30 S. C., 420; 56 S. C., 73; 52 S. C., 574; 54 S. C., 88; 22 Tex. L-, 77; 62 Ala., 550 ; 98 U. S., 61; 17 S. C., 35; 14 Ency., 2 ed., 194; 61 S. C., 501; 1 John (N. Y.), 436; 107 U. S., 3. As to burden of proof: 9 Ency. P. & P., 684, et seq.; 58 S. C., 59; Bump, on Er., 4 ed., sec. 615, 619, 620; 8 Ency., 654; 58 Am. Dec., 553; 14 Eed. R., 19; 1 Ency., 512; 42 E- R. A., 517; 4 L. R. A., 199. As to admissibility of Jones’ evidence: 21 S. C., 597; 57 S. C., 283; Bail. Eq., 139; 30 S. C., 289; 33 S. C., 310.</p> <p>Mr. Graydon cites: Plaintiffs’ action is not barred: 13 S. C., 21; 4 Strob. Eq., 96; 4 Rich. Eq., 60; Code, 112, sub. 6. Plea of res judicata cannot avail: Code, sec. 40; Rev. Stats., 2053 to 2063; 4 S. C., 156; Freeman on Void J. Sales, 37; 31 S. C., 217; 14 S. C., 473; 10 S. C., 347; 17 S. C., 42; 2 Hill Eq., 257; 38 S. E. R., 779; 8 Ency., 2 ed., 1091; 19 Ency. P. & P., 972, et seq.; 37 S. C., 161. Evidence of Jones inadmissible: 47 S. C.,’488. As to rate of interest: 1 N. & McC., 248; 10 S. C., 133; 2 S. C., 248; 14 S. C., 341,</p>

<p>Before Watts, J., Laurens, July, 1902.</p> <p>Indictment against Ferrel Milam and Enoch McCoy. From judgment on verdict, defendant, Milam, appeals.</p> <p>Former cite: As to the evidence of the deceased witnesses: 2 Hill, 282; 98 U. S., 145; 97 U. S., 693; Stephens on Fv., 78; 22 S. C., 428; 1 Rice Fv., 395; 1 -Green. Fv., 278; 1 Strob., 269; 3 Ala., 604; 3 Gill., 96; 1 Thom, on Trials, sec. 198.</p>

<p>1. Murder. — If there is bad blood between two men, and one seeks the other to bring on a difficulty, prepared to kill him if he resents, and he does resent and is killed, his assailant is guilty of murder.</p> <p>3. Charge — Presumption.—When the evidence is not presented to the Court, it assumes that the charge was responsive thereto.</p>

Before Gary, J., Greenville, July, 1902. Action by James E. Boyd against Blue Ridge Railway Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cites: Question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time: 25 S. C., 385. Greens-ville Court has no jurisdiction of defendant: Code, 146; 2 Rich., 516; 1 Strob., 70; 47 S. C., 389; 161 U. S., 496; 26 N. J.E., 121; 30 Vt.', 476; 19 N. Y., 408; 15 111., 337; 17 Ga.-, 323; 51 Mo., 308.

<p>Before Gary, J., Newberry, March, 1902.</p> <p>Action by James C. Schumpert against Southern Railway Co. and John Hutchison. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p> <p>cites: Plaintiff cannot allege that same act was both negligently and wilfully done: 61 S. C., 170; 22 St, 693; 42 S. C., 114; 55 S. C., 90; 60 S. C., 73. As to the joint and concurrent liability of the defendants: 179 U. S., 131; 1 Brev., 181; 9 Rich. R., 342; 2 Raym., 1007; 4 Term R., 589; 2 Fox & Smith, 200; Rice R., 162; 26 Fed., 50; 82 Fed., 790; 54 R. R. A., 649; 62 Me., 552; 13 R. R, 139; 5 Cush., 592; 72 Fed. R„ 637; Pom. on Rem., secs. 307, 308; 73 Fed. R., 311; Bus. on Per. Inj., sec. 31; 114 Mass., 149.</p> <p>cite: As to the demurrer: 64 S. C., 108; 22 St., 693; 47 $. C., 211. Can master and servant be sued as joint tort-feasors for zvrong done by servant in scope of employment: Pom. on Rem., 333, 334, 363; 26 S. C., 484; 2 Brev., 407; 2 Add. on Torts, 562, 563, 566 ; 179 U. S., 139 ; 2 M. & R., 570; 3 East., 62, note; Rice E. R., 70; 113 Ga., 1099; 115 U. S., 43; 5 Cush., 592; Cool, on Torts, 2 ed., 142; Bus. on Per. Inj., sec. 45; Sher. and Rev. on Neg., 5 ed., sec. 248; 4 Wait’s Acts and Defs., 405, 710; Wood on Master and Servant, 2 ed., sec. 325; 1 Estee on Plead., sec. 1834; 1 Chitty on Plead., 16 Am. ed., 97; 73 N. Y., 543; Broome’s Legal Mat., 843, et seq.; 6 M. & W., 499; 5 Exch., 343; Dud. L., 272; 9 Rich. L-, 93; 37 S. C., 380; 1 Add. on Torts, 587, 625; 2 Id., 552; 47 S. W. R., 615; 65 S. W. R., 13; 67 Id., 383; 37 N. J. L., 89; 3 C. P. Div., 121; 4 C. & P., 383; 4 Bam. & Crus., 223; 105 Fed. R., 449; 68 111. App., 448; 53 Ind., 337; 84 N. W. R., 1079; 19 Wend., 343; 30 N. Y., 78; 40 How. Pr., 456; 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 591; 30 S. W. R., 450; 63 N. W. R., 93; 30 N. W. R., 922; 10 Eng. C. L., 223; 25 Id., 125; 12 Ency. P. & P., 789, note 1; Ham. on Por., 85, 86; Cooley on Torts, 2 ed., 142; 116 Fed. R., 215; 3 Moak, 312; 84 N. W. R., 1079; 2 Lev., 172. Non-resident defendant can only remove cause when plaintiff voluntarily dismisses as to resident defendant: 169 U. S., 92; 175 U. S., 635; 132 U. S., 599; 114 U. S., 635; 18 Ency. P. & P., 361.</p>

Before DantzlER, J-, Sumter, April, 1902. Action by Samuel Gardner against Southern Railway Co. and Morgan B. Pierson. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. cite: Question of wilfulness should have been submitted to jury: 64 S. C., 491.

<p>Before Gage, J., Anderson, April, 1902.</p> <p>Action by Elip Mattison against Milton Mattison. From Circuit decree, defendant appeals.</p> <p>Mr. Tribble cites: 10 S. C., 354; 23 S. C., 232; 3 Hill, 194; 52 S. C., 245; 28 S. C., 238; 47 S. C., 288; 52 S. C., 554; 48 S. C., 440; 2 McC. Ch., 323; Bail. Eq., 383; 5 Reid S., 605; 2 Strob., 101; 5 Rich. Eq., 358; 17 S. C., 522; 57 S. C., 173; 56 S. C., 550.</p> <p>cite: 36 L. R. A., 186; 2 Jar. on Wills, 37; 16 S. C., 303; 1 Bay, 457; 1 Strob., 132; 1 Strob. Eq., 344; 1 Rich. Eq., 143; 3 Rich. Eq., 550; 10 S. C., 365; 16 S. C., 290; 28 S. C., 486; 27 S. C., 479; 23 S. C., 42, 238; 10 S. C., 56; 16 S. C., 303; 42 S. C., 346; 3 Strob. Eq., 66; 3 Rich. Eq., 15; 36 S. C., 38.</p>

Before Watts, J., Union, June, 1902. Action by B. F. Weber against Southern Railway Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cites: As to the excess fare and rebate check: 1 Ell. on R. R., sec. 199; 4- Ell. on Ry., sec. 1516; 1 Reaf. on Ry., 4 ed., 88; 2 Wood on R. R., 2 ed., 1198; 5 Ency., 2 ed., 482; Hutch, on Car., secs. 587-8; 6 U. R. A., 560; 75 111., 125; 18 Am. R., 454; 7 Am. Ry. R., 168; 10 Id., 66, 233; 11 Id., 148; 16 Id., 262; 19 Pa. R., 107; 28 Am.

Before Gage, J., Orangeburg, May, 1902. Action by Annie B. Carroll against Charleston and Seashore Railroad Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Judge should declare what is negligence: 41 S. C., 140. Court of appeals will grant relief from orders for new trials nisi where they ■ do not meet the demands of the case: 18 Ency P. & P., 144'; 2 Cliff., 82. cite: Party cannot complain of charge too favorable to him: 5,0 S. C., 49; 62 S. C., 380; 63 S. C., 290.

Before McCullough, special Judge, Greenwood, June, 1902. Action by Henrietta B. Reynolds et al. against Rosa L. Reynolds et al. From Circuit decree, plaintiff appeals. cite: Intention must govern: 19 S. C., 348, 8 L. R. A., 745. Court is authorised to put itself in position of testator: 134 U. S., 572; 5 West. R., 154; 113 Pa., 500; 95 N. C., 239; 103 N. Y., 453; 2 Brad., 418; 104 N. Y., 325.

<p>Before Gary, J., Greenville, September, 1902.</p> <p>Action by D. A. Carpenter, receiver, against Samuel C. Lewis et al. From Circuit decree, the defendants appeal.</p> <p>cites: As to the rules of settlement between insolvent building and loan association and borrowing member: 44 S. C., 121; 12 Rich. Eq., 126; 15 S. C., 462; 63 S. C., 537.</p> <p>cites: Questions raised here are res judicata: 61 S. C., 9.</p>

Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, June, 1903. Action by Minnie H. Pike, admx., against Spartanburg Railway, Gas and Electric Co. From order requiring plaintiff to further amend complaint, she appeals. cite: Not necessary to allege that defendants knew of defects in machinery: 35 S. C., 407; 18 S. C., 363, 375; 33 S. C., 301. Master is charged with knowledge of defects: 34 S. C., 314; 18 S. C., 363; 33 S. C., 93.

Before Watts, J., Anderson, October, 1902. Action by James L. Jones, administrator, against Charleston and Western Carolina Railway Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Mr. Simpson cites: Deceased was trespasser, and defendant owed no other duty than to trespasser: 64 S. C., 7, 546 ; 11 E. R. A., 385 ; 23 Id., 717; 24 A. & E. R. R. Ca., 57. Care required of one walking on track: Cooley on Torts, 804; 2 Thomp. on Trials, sec. 1689.

<p>Before Buchanan, J., Richland, April term, 1902.</p> <p>Action by G. W. Wilson against Southern Railway. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p> <p>cite: As to the evidence ruled out: 61 S. C., 337; Lawson on Ex. and Op. Ev., 2 ed., 469, 470-1-2-3-4; 18 111., 257: 38 S. C., 284. As to the charge: Code, 1902, sec. 2135; 24 S. C., 370; 40 S. C., 519; 31 S. C., 378; 41 S. C.. 91; 3 L. R. A., 224; 37 S. C., 386; 24 S. C., 109.</p>

Before Gagl, J-, Greenville, April, 1902. Action by Wilson & Edwards against City Council of Greenville. From order of Circuit Court, reversing judgment of magistrate, plaintiffs appeal. cite: This ordinance must be strictly construed:.! Dill Mun. Corp., sec. 325; 2 Spear’s, 728. In order to make out case, all of the acts essential and proper to carry on the business must at some time during the year have been done here: 21 Ency., 2 ed., 785; 52 Da.

Before Watts, J., Union, June, 1902. Action by Arthur Marsh against Western Union Telegraph Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Plaintiff’s physical injuries are too remote: 8 Ency., 2 eel., 561, 571, 574, 583, 584; 41 N. Y., 544;-Eng. Ent. St., sec. 113; 40 S. C., 524; 46 N. E., 358; 13 S. W., 169; 61 S. W., 421. The mental anguish damages should be limited to failure to attend funeral: 33 S. C., 189; 47 S. C., 301.

Before Buchanan, J., Edgefield, March, 1903. Action by H. H. Stembridge against Southern Railway, From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: As to electing between actual and punitive damages: Code of Proc., 186a; 57 S. C., 234; 55 S. C., 96; 58 S. C., 226; 61 S. C., 184; 60 S. C., 48; 63 S. C., 363; 64 S. C., 104, 389, 491. Two causes of action are stated: 38 S. C., 485;. Pom. R. R., sec. 456; 61 S. C., 184; 64 S. C., 494.

Before Benet, J., Edgefield, October, 1901. Foreclosure by Interstate Building and L,oan Association against J. A. Holland and Mrs. 'A. P. Holland, who purchased the lot in 1894. From Circuit decree, the plaintiff appeals. cite: The contract should be construed as a building and loan contract: 49 S. C., 408; 55 S. C., 316.

<p>Before Townsend, J., Barnwell, July, 1902.</p> <p>Foreclosure by H. W. Montague, administrator of W. P. Wilcox, against Susan H. and B. B. Best. From Circuit order, defendants appeal.</p> <p>cite: Cir. Ct. Rule 28; 32 S. C., 203; 56 S. C., 298; 52 S. C., 511; Code, 195.</p> <p>cites; Code,-293; 13 S. C., 334; Code, 1902, sec. 2244; 55 S. C., 485; 20 Ency., 1 ed., 670; 74 N. Y., 832; 25 N. Y., 203.</p>

Before Gage, J., Orangeburg, October, 1902. Held: ‘the act seems to háve been prepared with scrupulous care to prevent the trial of any issues except those involved in the petition, together with the question as to the amount of damages to be paid the (railroad company) by the (telephone company’). 63 S. C., 204.

Before Benet, J., Barnwell, fall term, 1901. Action by J. S. Breland against b. W. Ritter and J. C. Breland. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. cite: It is error to charge matters not raised by pleadings: 29 S. C., 152. Charge was on facts: 31 S. C., 281.,

<p>Before Krugh, J., Barnwell, December, 1901.</p> <p>Ex parte O’Bannon, master, in re Buist, against Merchants’ and Planters’ Bank; in re John O’Gorman, receiver. From Circuit order, master appeals.</p> <p>cites: Code, 306; 2 Rich. Eq., 32; 15 S- C., 616; 22 S. C., 186; 5 S. C., 128.</p> <p>cite: 19 S. C., 488; 60 S. C., 372; 31 S. C., 92; 46 S. C., 252.</p>

Before Buchanan, J., Lexington, February, 1902. Action by Killian Harman against Western Union Telegraph Co. From judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. cite: Failure to deliver telegram zvas act of wanton carelessness: 57 S. C., 325; 62 S. C., 222. Brror to hold complaint did not state a' cause of action: 62 S. C., 235; 28 S. C., 86; 57 S. C., 325; 34 S. C„ 311; 35 S. C., 475; 58 S. C., 273. cite: Admission of Haltizvanger telegram, harmless error: 61 S. C., 339.

Before Gage, J., Charleston, July, 1902. Action by Elizabeth M. Heyward against Henry Middleton and Julius H. Heyward, administrator of Susan S. Middleton. From Circuit decree, defendant, Henry Middleton, appeals. cite: Testimony is not sufficient to support the 'Finding as to advancements: 2 Strob. Eq., 148; 3 Id., 185; 5 Rich. Eq., 157; 2 McC. Eq., 90. No evidence as to value of advancements at mother’s death: 11 S. C., 36; 20 S. C., 64; 21 S. C., 535.

<p>Before Townsend, J., Charleston, May, 1902.</p> <p>Action by John Forrest, M. D., against City Council of Charleston and T. Moultrie Mordecai et al., commissioners of the city orphan asylum. From order granting discontinuance, defendants appeal.</p> <p>cite: 60 S. C., 1.</p> <p>cites: 2 Wait’s Prac., 600; 1 Bailey, 262; 1 Speer, 307.</p>

<p>1. Testimony De Bene Esse — A Notice to take testimony at No. 31 Bank of Baltimore building, is complied with by taking the deposition at office of S. & Co., No. 31 Bank of Baltimore building, especially where objector was present by representative.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Signature oe Witness to evidence de bene esse is properly identified by certificate of notary that he had sworn and examined the witness.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Books of Account — Refreshing Memory. — A person inspecting articles before charged and who superintended the charging on the books of original entry, can refresh his memory as to value of articles by inspection of books.</p> <p>4. Damages — Special—Punitive.-—Loss in value of suits of clothing by means of injury to the coats, is special damages, but under issue of wilful negligence if is proper to show special and even remote damages.</p> <p>5. Evidence — Expert.—A person having experience in handling custom-made clothing may testify as an expert to the damage thereto by rain, although he has never seen the clothes.</p> <p>6. Ibid. — Negligence.—Reason for failure to exercise proper precaution in the past does not tend to excuse or negative negligence at the present.</p> <p>7. Negligence — Act of God. — A Common Carrier is excused for injury to goods by the act of God only when such act is the entire cause. “Act of God” defined.</p>

Before Aldrich, J., Richland, June, 1902. Action by Jacob W. Butler against Western Union Telegraph Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals on exceptions, of which the following are the first seven: “First.

<p>Before Watts, J., Union, June, 1902.</p> <p>Action by Charles H. Norman against Southern Railway Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p> <p>cites: A railroad company has the right to make and enforce reasonable rules: 4 Elliott on R. R., par. 1576; 19 Ency., 1 ed., 820, and notes; 5 Ency., 2 ed., 482, and notes; Hutch, on Car., secs. 587-8; 1 Rev. on Rys., 4 ed., 88; 2 Wood on Rys., 2 ed., 1198; and, therefore,arule limiting Ihe time within which a ticket should be used: 4 Elliott on Rys., sec. 1598; 3 Wood on Rys., 2 ed., 1636; 1 Red. on Rys., 4 ed., 100; 25 Ency., 1 ed., 1093; 13 Am. R., 619; 23 S. R., 583; 1 Allen., 267; 63 N. Y., 101; 43 E. R. A., 136; 40 Vt., 88; 34 Md., 532; 83 Am. St. R., 242; 39 Am. St. R., 484; 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas., 310, and note 312; 6 Id., 338; Hutch, on Car., 575, 576, 587; 1 Eet. on Car. Pass., 731; 36 S. E. R., 212. And purchaser is charged with notice of time limit printed on ticket: 4 Elliott on R. R., sec. 1576; 1 Fetter on Car. of Pass., secs. 285, 287; Hutch, on Carriers, secs. 581, 587; 3 Wood on R. R., 1636; 13 Am. R., 618; 88 Am. Dec., 199; 10 Am. R., 711; 57 Am. St. R., 238; 45 Am. Dec., 190; 92 Mich., 406; 8 Am. St. R., 392; 43 L. R. A., 136; 5 Ency., 484, 485, and notes; 51 Am. St. R., 208-9; 57 Id., 242; 13 Am. R., 619; 39 Am. St. R., 488; 88 Am. Dec., 199; 83 Am. St. R., 244; 25 Pac, R., 73; 5 S. C., 358; 26 S. C., 96; 62 S. C., 12. Pace of ticket is conclusive evidence of right of passenger: "Hutch on Car., 575, 580; J. & H., 4 Ell. on R. R., secs. 1393-4; 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas., 351; 10 Am. R., 714-5; 26 Am. St. R., 913; 15 Am. R., 419; 127 U. S., 390; 32 Am. St. R., 528; 132 U. S., 150; 26 Am. R., 531; 43 I,. R. A., 139; Bish. Non Con. L., secs. 1087-89-93; 9 E. R. A., 132; 15 Am. R., 419; 3 Am. Neg. R., 511; 46 Am. R., 483. Plaintiff not entitled to punitive damages: 9 E. R. A., 134; 106 N. C., 168; Cooley on Torts, 774-5; 15 Am, R„ 423; 26 Id., 531; 17 L. R. A., 802; 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas., 352; 23 Am. R., 730; 54 Ark., 354.</p> <p>cite: Ticket is a receipt and not a contract: 25 Ency., 1074; 13 A. R., 617; 17 N. Y., 306; 43 E. R. A., 140. Mere knowledge of conditions printed on ticket or notices posted are not sufficient evidence of his assent to it: 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas., 9; 8 A. R., 543; 16 Wall., 329; 43 R. R. A., 143; 13 A. R., 617.</p>

<p>Before Townsend, J., Charleston, May, 1902.</p> <p>Action by Cornelia G. DuPont against the Charleston Bridge Co. From decree in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p> <p>cite: As to the construction of the resolution: Bieb. Henn., 11, 43, 44; Black on Inter, of Baws, 3, 16, 28; 47 N. Y., 375; Story on Con., 401; 11 N. Y., 593; 9 Stat., 434, 482; 2 Par. on Con., 495. Plaintiff has waived and abandoned her right of free passage: Bish. on Con., sec. 792; 140 Mass., 472; 130 N. Y., 624; Wash, on Eas., 3 ed., 661; 149 Mass., 101; 4 McC., 104; 15 S. C., 35; 10 Ency., 2 ed., 437. Right to cross free of toll is barred by statute: Code of Proc., 112; 12 S. C., 42; Code, sub. 1, secs. 98, 104; 6 Rich. E., 300; 2 S. C., 496.</p> <p>cite: Plaintiff’s right lo pass over the bridge is res judicata: 17 S. C., 40; 41 S. C., 172; Freem. on Judg.,. sec. 252; 8 Ency., 134. As to the construction of the resolution: 17 Ency., 2 ed., 14, 18, 21; 14 S. C., 165; 47 Fed. R., 381; 9 Wall, 407; 107 U. S., 441; 63 S. C., 293; 21 S. C., 226; Bish. on Con., sec. 203; Chitty on Con., sec. 276. Presumption arising from lapse of tzuenty years does not apply: 17 Ency., 2 ed., 866; 121 N. Y., 628; Jones on Eas., secs. 845, 850; 3 Strob., 227; 4 McC., 106; 31 N. E., 896; 22 S. C., 546. As to damages for acts continuing after suit commenced: 5 Strob., 26 ; 39 S. C., 556. Right to pass free of toll not waived: 63 S. C., 188; 2 H. E., 57; 105 U. S., 359; 28 Ency., 528; Big. on Est., 2 ed., 1890, 663; 15 S. C., 35. Paying toll zvas mistake of laza and zvill be relieved against: 2 J. & W., 205; E. R., 2 H. E., 149; E R., 3 Ch. Div., 779; 1 Ves., Sr., 126; Story Eq. Jur., sec. 121; 2 McM., 463; 1 Hill Ch., 251; 20 S. C., 230; 26 S. C., 41, 91, 450; 52 S. C., 245; 32 At. R., 566; 48 S. C., 458. Plaintiff entitled to punitive damages: 21 S. C., 599; 34 S. C., 311; 54 S. C., 500; 60 S. C., 73; 62 S. C., 234, 384; 64 S. C., 245.</p>

Before Watts, J., Fairfield, February term, 1902. Action by J. Harzburg & Co. against Southern Railway. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. cites: Error to admit evidence as to damages to whole 'suits: 5 Ency., 1 ed., 50, 719, 721; 1 Sutli. on Dam., 2 ed., secs. 14, 420; 3 Brev., 185; 40 S. C., 528; 39 S. C., 468; 31 S. C., 49; 3 Strob., 373; 57 S. C., 484; 45 S. C., 282; 57 S. C., 433.

Before Hudson, special J., Sumter, December, 1901. From Circuit decree, defendant, in first case, plaintiff in second, appeals. cite: Statute of frauds should be pleaded: 61 S. C., 393; 28 S- C., 175; 8 Ency., 715; 7 Ency., 2 ed., 125. Several papers may be taken together to make up a contract: 8 Ency., 712, 718, 719; 48 S. C., 507. What acts will take case out of statute of frauds: 21 S. C., 480; 9 Ency., 161, 162.

<p>Before DanTzeer, J., Sumter, May, 1902.</p> <p>Proceeding to prove will in solemn form by Orlando C. Scarborough against Fannie A. Baskin et al. From Circuit decree, defendants appeal.</p> <p>cite: A non-expert witness cannot give an opinion without stating facts: 1 McM., 56; 38 S. C., 199; 1 Whar. & Stille Med. Jur., secs. 380, 378, 385, 454. As to testamentary capacity: 4 McC., 193; 1 Bail., 92; 2 Mill, 232; 11 Ency., 1 ed., 151; 7 Rich. E., 480; 25 Ency., 1 ed., 983, 984; 63 Am. St. R., 94; 201 Pa. St., 490; 51 At. R., 336. As to burden of proof as to ill feeling: 25 Ency., 979.</p> <p>cite: Sanity is presumed: 3 Hill, 68: As to testamentary capacity: 1 Bail., 92; McC., 183; 35 N. Y., 70; 21 Vt., 168; 115 111., 623; 48 Wis., 294; 101 Pa., 495. Burden to show insanity is on contestant: 7 Pick., 94; 3 Hill, 68.</p>

Before Townsend, J., Dorchester, March, 1902. Foreclosure by Harriet E. Muckenfuss against Helen M. Fishburne and Sophia F. S. Marion. From order recommitting case with instructions, defendants appeal'. cite: Order is not appealable: 21 S. C., 371; 3 S. C., 417; 25 S. C., 41; 33 S. C., 100; 58 S. C., 463. Judge may hear case and render decision after adjournment: 21 S. C., H; 55 S. C., 379.

<p>Before DanTzeER, J., Richland, November, 1902.</p>