TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dantzler v. Southern Rwy. Co.

Dantzler v. Southern Rwy. Co., 164 S.E. 434 (S.C. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 14, 1931
Docket
No. 13302
Judges
Stabler, Bease, Messrs, Carter, Bonham, Cothran
Citations
164 S.E. 434166 S.C. 1481931 S.C. LEXIS 261

Opinion of the Court — Stabler

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Stabler.

*149 This is a companion case to Youngblood v. Southern Railway Company and Southern Railway — Carolina Division, 166 S. C., 140, 164 S. E., 431 , now in process of decision. Thé action was commenced in May, 1924, by the plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Lawrence Keitt Dantzler, deceased, for damages for the alleged wrongful death of her intestate. On January 3, 1924, Dantzler, who was in the employ of the defendants as a locomotive engineer, was operating, with Youngblood as conductor, one of the defendants’ trains, which met in a head-on collision, near Stilton, in Orangeburg County, another of defendants’ trains. In the wreck both Dantzler and Youngblood received injuries from which they shortly afterwards died.

This case was tried for the first time at the June, 1927, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Barnwell County. The jury found for the plaintiff $33,875.00, but on appeal to this Court, for the reasons stated in the Court’s decision, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. 152 S. C., 287, 149 S. E., 750 . It was tried again in September, 1930, the jury finding for the plaintiff $12,-500.00. Motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial were duly made by the defendants, and overruled by the Court.

The questions presented by this appeal are the same as those involved in the appeal in the Youngblood case.

It is conceded that the evidence in the two cases is substantially the same. What we have said, therefore, in the Youngblood case, disposes of the questions here raised.

All exceptions are overruled, and the judgment below is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bease and Messrs. Justices Carter and Bonham concur.

Mr. Justice Cothran did not participate on account of illness.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1938: 11960: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. South Carolina State Highway Department115 S.E.2d 685 (S.C. 1960)
  2. Brown v. Sikes198 S.E. 854 (S.C. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. South Carolina State Highway Department115 S.E.2d 685 (S.C. 1960)
  2. Brown v. Sikes198 S.E. 854 (S.C. 1938)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dantzler v. Southern Ry. Co., 149 S.E. 750 (S.C. 1929) 3
Youngblood v. Southern Ry. Co., 164 S.E. 431 (S.C. 1931) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list