Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1919

Faulk v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 20, 1919 · Gary

101 S.E. 641; 115 S.C. 306 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Jas. S. Verner , for appellant, cites: The main question is whether the Carmack Amendment has changed the rule as to liability of the terminal carrier established in 66 S.C. 477 : 99 S.C. 470 ; 98 S.C. 468 . Statutory penalty was involved in 237 U.S. 537 : 100 S.C. 227 ; 101 S.C. 436 . Rule as to effect of Carmack Amendment in other States: 65 So. 104 (La.); 143 P. 325 (Okla.); 84 A. 72 (Md.); 150 N.W. 508 (Wis.); 241 U.S. 190 ; 60 L.Ed. 948 . Upon delivery to carrier, the rights are regulated by the uniform bill of lading: 95 A. 1002 (N.Y.). Shipper and carrier bound by filed tariff rates: 53 L.Ed. (U.S.) 901. Burden on carrier to prove facts in relation to special contract relied upon by it: 4 R.C.L., par. 377, p. 920. Mr. H.N. Edmunds , for respondent, cites: Original Interstate Commerce Act: U.S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 3169. Carmack Amendment: U.S. Comp. Stats. 1911, p. 1307. Effect of the amendment: 226 U.S. 505 . Rule in 99 S.C. 470 superseded by 237 U.S. 537 , which discusses the "presumption" announced in 66 S.C. 477 . Controlling authority recognized in 100 S.C. 227 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChieEJustice Gary.

This is an action for damages arising out of injuries to certain animals, as will appear by reference to the complaint, which, together with the testimony, the grounds of the motion for non suit, and the appellant’s exceptions will be reported.

The first question, that will be considered is whether there was any testimony tending to show that the animals were injured while in the possession of the defendant.

*315 There is no direct and, positive testimony that the horses were injured while being transported by the defendant, but it is susceptible of a reasonable inference to that effect. Having reached this conclusion, the action was properly brought against the terminal instead of the initial carrier. Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Glenn, 239 U. S. 388, 36 Sup. Ct. 154, 60 L. Ed. 344; Georgia v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190 36 Sup. Ct. 541, 60 L. Ed. 948.

As this case arose under the Interstate Commerce Law (Act February 4, 1887c, 104, 24 Stat. 379), it is unneces.sary to construe a similar statute of this State; it’ being applicable only to intrastate commerce.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.