From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hambright v. Southern Railway

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 17, 1914
98 S.C. 219 (S.C. 1914)

Opinion

8890

July 17, 1914.

Before DeVORE, J., Gaffney, November, 1913. Modified.

Action by Nannie S. Hambright against Southern Railway — Carolina Division. From an order permitting plaintiff to amend his complaint by changing the title, so that the name of the defendant as set forth therein be Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company, defendant, Southern Railway-Carolina Division, appeals.

Messrs. Sanders DePass, for appellant, submit: Entire change of parties defendant not permitted by Code Civil Proc. 224; 13 S.C. 397; 32 S.C. 142.

Messrs. Otts Dobson, for respondent, cite: Code Civil Proc., sec. 224. Summons and complaint was served on an agent, who represented both the Southern Railway Company, lessee, and the Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company, the lessor, and defendant came into Court and answered to the merits: 35 S.C. 378; 46 S.C. 11; 61 S.C. 579; 67 S.C. 231; 71 S.C. 425. Sole defendant may be struck out and another substituted: 71 S.C. 425; 51 S.C. 316; 13 S.C. 495; Bailey Eq. 181; 81 S.C. 498; 13 S.C. 402. Allowance of amendment was in discretion of the Court: 18 S.C. 315; 32 S.C. 69; 48 S.C. 565. Misnomer of defendant waived by appearance and plea to merits: 31 Cyc. 737 and 738; 22 S.C. 188.


July 17, 1914. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an appeal from an order allowing the plaintiff to amend the summons and complaint, by substituting the name of "Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company," instead of the defendant, "Southern Railway — Carolina Division," also from an order refusing the motion, to allow the defendant to tax costs against the plaintiff.

The order allowing the amendment was, in effect, a dismissal of the complaint against the defendant, Southern Railway — Carolina Division, and was not prejudicial to its rights. Therefore the exception assigning error in this respect is overruled. But, as the order was, practically, a dismissal of the complaint, the defendant was entitled to its costs, and there was error in refusing to allow the defendant to tax them against the plaintiff.

Modified.


Summaries of

Hambright v. Southern Railway

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 17, 1914
98 S.C. 219 (S.C. 1914)
Case details for

Hambright v. Southern Railway

Case Details

Full title:HAMBRIGHT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY — CAROLINA DIV

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jul 17, 1914

Citations

98 S.C. 219 (S.C. 1914)
82 S.E. 416

Citing Cases

Stewart-Jones Co. v. Hankins

Messrs. Dunlap Dunlap, and Hart Moss, for appellant, cite: Cases distinguished: 42 S.C. 488. Payment ofcosts:…

State v. Everett

This principle has been applied where the wound is mortal, or is adequate and calculated to produce death,…