The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. Smythe Visanska, for appellant corporation, cite: Nonassignable duties of master: 72 S.C. 264, 269; 39 S.C. 507; 26 Fed. 837; 66 S.C. 91, 99; 154 U.S. 349; 40 S.C. 104, 106, 107; 63 Fed. 107; 109 U.S. 483; 114 Fed. 100, note; 54 L.R.A. 106; 198 Pa. 112; 52 L.R.A. 935. Fellow servants: 78 S.C. 381; 25 S.C. 133; 63 S.C. 559, 576; 112 U.S. 377; 149 U.S. 375; 165 U.S. 363; 50 Fed. 728; 154 U.S. 358; 50 Fed. 185; 63 Fed. 107; 57 Fed. 188; 28 S.E. 267; 69 Fed. 358; 32 Mich. 570; 60 Miss. 977; 162 U.S. 375; 63 S.C. 559; 39 S.C. 507; 15 S.C. 443, 455; 51 S.C. 96. Proof of negligence: 92 S.C. 147; 110 Fed. 674: 166 U.S. 618; 152 U.S. 691; 69 S.C. 529; 66 S.C. 256; 72 S.C. 398-401. Prima facie presumptionof negligence rebutted: 87 S.C. 176; 93 S.C. 395, 396. A reversal as to one defendant in action for an alleged jointtort requires reversal as to both: 59 A. 456; 128 S.W. 463; 43 N.E. 393, 395; 127 Pa. 831; 33 S.E. 44; 20 S.E. 480. Master not liable for accidents: 78 S.C. 472, 481; 90 S.C. 229, 233; 75 S.W. 689. Messrs. Mitchell Smith, for appellant, Chisolm, cite: Judgment absolute should
Affirmed. Messrs. T.B. Bryant, Jr., and Fred R. Fanning, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Appellant, cite: As to testimony by Plaintiff,adduced on direct examination, as to insurance beinginvolved, being proper ground for granting Defendant's motionfor mistrial: 6 S.E.2d 902, 192 S.C. 382. As torespondent being a principal and not a servant: 86 S.E. 17, 101 S.C. 493; 5 S.E.2d 862, 192 S.E. 156 As to noliability on master, for injury caused by fellow servant, inabsence of negligence on part of master: 173 S.C. 518, 176 S.E. 352; 72 S.C. 264, 51 S.E. 882. As to assumption ofrisk by respondent and injury being caused by his own solegross negligence: 89 S.C. 502, 71 S.E. 1082; 112 S.C. 541, 100 S.E. 151. Messrs. J. Stokes Salley, and Felder Rosen, of Orangeburg, for Respondent, cite: As to testimony concerning insurance,when not injurious, being not fatal: 164 S.E. 313, 166 S.C. 44; 166 S.E. 101, 167 S.C. 129; 154 S.E. 626, 199 N.C. 364.
Order directing a new trial unless plaintiff remit all of the verdict against the named defendant except the sum of $100.00, and both plaintiff and named defendant appealed. Messrs. Price Poag and W.A. Bull, for appellant-respondent, cite: Appeal: 24 S.C. 86; 85 S.C. 82; 67 S.E., 1; 165 S.C. 297; 163 S.E., 727. Construction of pleadings: 171 S.C. 483; 172 S.E., 620; 156 S.C. 226; 152 S.E., 878; 86 S.C. 98; 67 S.E., 899; 8 S.C. 103; 39 C.J., 1023; 128 S.C. 131; 121 S.E., 476; 123 S.C. 199; 116 S.E., 97; 92 S.C. 236; 75 S.E., 533. Duty of master tofurnish safe place for servant to work: 149 S.C. 284; 147 S.E., 327; 171 S.C. 34; 171 S.E., 9; 173 S.C. 518; 176 S.E., 352; 71 S.C. 53; 50 S.E., 716; 107 S.C. 122; 108 S.E., 190. Duties of master non-assignable: 97 S.C. 403; 81 S.E., 660; 72 S.C. 264; 51 S.E., 82; 151 S.C. 280; 148 S.E., 87; 96 S.C. 425; 81 S.E., 10; 141 S.C. 453; 140 S.E., 105; 92 S.C. 528; 75 S.E., 964. As toevidence to support defense of contributory negligence: 130 S.C. 458; 126 S.E., 627; 167 S.C. 152; 166 S.E., 85. Defense of fellow-servant: 39 C.J., 798; 79 S.C. 502; 89 S.C. 525; 84 S.C. 283; 66 S.E., 298; 112 S.C. 117; 125 S.E., 615; 166 N.C. 635; 82 S.E., 1038; 180 N.C. 24; 103 S.E., 895. Messrs. Stephen Nettles and J. Douglass Poteat, for respondent-appellant, Southern Bleachery Print Works, cite: Negligence: 144 S.C. 10; 126 S.C. 324; 101 S.C. 59; 72 S.C. 264. Failure of trial Judge to direct verdict: 173 S.C. 213; 173 S.C. 448; 181 S.C. 188; 181 S.C. 258; 295 U.S. 654; 79 L.Ed., 1636; 201 N.Y., 355; 94 N.E., 863; 121 S.C. 237.
Action by Murray Brewer against the Brooklyn Cooperage Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Messrs. Epps Levy, for appellants, cite: As to fellowservant rule: 72 S.C. 264; 161 S.E., 331; 71 S.C. 53. Error to instruct jury that burden on master of exculpatinghimself: 72 S.C. 213; 126 S.C. 304; 34 S.C. 211; 90 S.E., 209; 23 C.J., 9. Messrs. Reynolds Reynolds, for respondent, cite: As tomaster's duty to furnish safe place to work: 84 S.C. 286; 55 S.C. 483; 81 S.C. 374; 117 S.C. 122; 191 S.C. 284; 99 S.C. 231; 89 S.C. 502.
Action by John H. Veronee against the Charleston Consolidated Railway Lighting Company, etc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Mr. G.L.B. Rivers, for appellant, cites: Jurors must bequalified electors: Art. 5, Sec. 22, Const.; Art. 2, Sec. 4, Const.; 84 S.C. 48. "Electors": 55 S.C. 90; 120 S.C. 535; 129 S.C. 476. Contributory negligence: 82 S.C. 549; 71 S.C. ___; 72 S.C. 237; 86 S.C. 116. Assumptionof risk: 72 S.C. 346; 141 S.E., 687; 72 S.C. 264; 75 S.C. 487; 71 S.C. 53; Art. 9, Sec. 15, Const.; Sec. 5038, Code; 141 S.E., 687. Error to admit evidence of compromiseagainst party by whom offer made: 135 S.E., 575; 102 S.C. 130; 57 S.C. 358; 88 S.C. 281. Bias of jurormade trial unfair: 91 S.C. 36. Error not to set verdictaside: 92 S.C. 423. Messrs.
Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Messrs. Elliott, McLain, Wardlaw Elliott, for appellant, cite: Fellow servant: 78 S.C. 381; 71 S.C. 53. Safeplace: 71 S.C. 53; 141 S.E., 685; 72 S.C. 264. Messrs. A.F. Spigner, and James S. Verner, for respondent, cite: As to appeal: 118 S.C. 319; 145 S.C. 41; 138 S.C. 127; 100 S.C. 113; 86 S.C. 138; 104 S.C. 180; 67 S.C. 548; 80 S.C. 460. Safe place: 141 S.C. 453; 20 R. C.L., 55. Duty of master to servant: 126 S.C. 324; 101 S.C. 83; 35 S.C. 405; 18 S.C. 279; 81 S.C. 203; 118 S.C. 235; 144 S.C. 10. As to negligence of master: 71 S.C. 53; 72 S.C. 346; 117 S.C. 122. As to assumption of risk: 128 S.C. 47; 233 U.S. 504; 107 S.C. 99; 92 S.C. 528; 79 S.C. 512.
Mr. Walter Hazard, for appellant, cites: Error to overrulemotion for nonsuit here: 55 S.C. 483; 29 S.C. 96. Master not liable to servant for injury caused by negligenceof co-servant without knowledge of master: 54 L.R.A., 108; 71 Fed., 853; 92 Fed., 884; 22 N.Y.S., 749; 32 Mich., 510; 123 S.C. 199; 18 R.C.L., 736; 93 A.S.R., 522; 33 L.R.A. (N.S.), 223. When only one inferencecan be drawn from a given state of facts, as to whether therewas negligence or not, it is a question for the Court: 51 S.C. 296; 52 S.C. 438; 55 S.C. 483. General liability ofmaster: 21 S.C. 466; 27 S.C. 71; 35 S.C. 381; 14 Enc. Law, 842, 843; 54 L.R.A., 85; 64 S.C. 212; 40 S.C. 104; 48 S.C. 190; 72 S.C. 237; 21 S.C. 547; 72 S.C. 346; 55 S.C. 101; Id., 483; 72 S.C. 264; 1 LaBatt, Master and Servant, Secs. 263, 264, 279; 72 S.C. 346; 86 S.C. 271; 211 U.S. 459; 199 Pac., 933; 269 A.L.R., 864; 18 R. C.L., 569, Sec. 78; 170 U.S. 671; 66 S.C. 482; 71 S.C. 53; 18 S.C. 262; 22 S.C. 557; 23 S.C. 526; 39 S.C. 510; 51 S.C. 96; 123 S.C. 199; 130 S.C. 458; 111 S.C. 368; 2 L.R.A. (N.S.), 840. Party alleging fraudmust prove it by clear and convincing evidence: 91 S.E., 166; 107 S.E., 795; 119 S.E., 1020; 120 S.E., 891; 55 S.E., 1020. Proof of fraud: 2 Pom., Eq. Jur., Secs. 876-879, 882, 886, 888, 890; 9 Cyc., 411, 424, 426; 5 L.R.A. (N.S.), 669. A mere representation of opinion, althougherroneous, is not a fraud against which the law will relieve: 9 Cyc., 416; 5 L.R.A. (N.S.), 669; 116 Fed., 913; 2 Pom., Eq. Jur., Sec. 879; 66 L.R.A., 734; 52 N.W., 135; 66 Pac., 1018; 16 So., 346. Physician furnished by employerfor injured employee, where employer is not undercontract, is not the agent of the employer: 128 S.C. 216. Cases distinguished: 106 S.C. 200; 110 S.C. 534
us dangers: 20 Ency., 312; Shear. Red., Sec. 212; 26 Cyc., 1217. Servant can not recoverfor negligence of fellow-servant: 56 S.E., 9; 72 S.C. 237; 71 S.C. 53; 74 S.C. 419; 39 S.E., 708. Servantrepairing machinery assumes risks growing out of defects: 39 S.E., 708. If servant chose dangerous way master isnot liable: 54 S.E., 110. Messrs. Francis I. Osborne, Russell G. Lucas and NormanA. Cocke cite: This Court should inquire if there is anyevidence to support plaintiff's charge: 58 S.E., 13; 59 S.E., 365. Defendant did not fail to perform any of theduties of the master: 61 S.C. 491; 20 Ency., 132; 41 S.C. 388; Lab. on M. S., Secs., 29, 268. Safe place: 61 S.C. 491; 20 Ency., 119, 132; 41 S.C. 388; 1 Lab. on M. S., Secs. 335, 862, 865; 59 S.E., 365; 61 S.C. 491; 110 Ill., 340; 67 Mich., 61; 53 Wis. 661; 58 Wis. 1; 7 Wn., 178; 39 S.E., 507. Plaintiff was injured by act of fellow-servantand defendant company not liable: 79 S.C. 452; 58 S.E., 1019, 12; 56 S.E., 18; 71 S.C. 53; 75 S.C. 487; 72 S.C. 264; 74 S.C. 419; 70 S.C. 96; 39 S.C. 507; 18 S.C. 262; 25 S.C. 128; 18 S.C. 270; 23 S.C. 526; 39 S.C. 510; 51 S.C. 79; 71 S.C. 53; 72 S.C. 237. Plaintiff was injured by risks he had assumed: 22 S.C. 227; 59 S.E., 365; 20 Ency., 111-2, 115, 117; Lab. on M. S., Sec. 30a; 26 Cyc., 1196, 1203, 1263; 72 S.C. 237, 264, 346; 74 S.C. 419; 70 S.C. 470; 55 S.C. 483; 75 S.C. 487; 70 S.C. 242; 27 S.C. 71; 21 S.C. 547; 66 S.C. 91; 58 S.E., 12; 56 S.E., 18. No duty on defendant towarn of danger: 55 S.C. 483; 72 S.C. 346; 58 S.E., 13; 27 S.C. 71; 26 S.C. 490; Lab. on M. S., Secs. 237-8, 391, 600-1, 609; 4 Thomp. on Neg., Secs. 4061, 4074, 4076; Bail. Per. Inj. M. S., Secs. 796-800, 2871, 2707-8, 2718; 20 Ency., 97; 72 S.C. 264. Injury due to plaintiff'sown negligence or his contributory negligence: 58 S.E., 13; 59 S.E., 365; 56 S.E., 18; 77 S.C. 432; 72 S.C. 97; Lab. on M. S., Secs. 258, 331, 333, 335; 20 Ency., 139, 144, 145, 146, 148; 140 Mass. 201; 123 N.Y., 280; 113 Mich., 476; 58 Minn., 333; 82
Action by Lizzie Wilson, administratrix of Wm. Wilson, against Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Messrs. Mordecai Gadsden, Rutledge Hagood, and Simeon Hyde, for appellant. Mr. Hyde cites: Danger wasobvious and must have been known by deceased: 71 S.C. 53; 75 S.C. 489. Parties at work were fellow-servants andquestion was for Judge: 75 S.C. 489; 71 S.C. 53; 51 S.C. 79; 56 S.C. 446; 72 S.C. 264, 237; 57 S.C. 296. If only one inference can be drawn from evidence questionof negligence is for court: 51 S.C. 296. Mr. Jas. L. Jervey and Jervey Cohen, contra.
Affirmed. Messrs. Hendersons Salley, of Aiken, for Appellant, cite: As to refusal of court to charge proper requests tocharge being reversible error: 119 S.C. 134, 150, 112 S.E. 78; 47 S.C. 488, 511. As to when there is no evidence tosustain a specific allegation of negligence, it is the duty ofthe court to charge the jury not to consider that issue: 113 S.C. 84, 100 S.E. 892; 138 S.C. 113, 135 S.E. 877; 205 S.C. 1, 30 S.E.2d 755. As to duty of employer tofurnish proper tools and appliances being an entirely differentand distinct issue from that of furnishing a safeplace in which to work: 72 S.C. 264, 51 S.E. 882; 89 S.C. 387, 71 S.E. 980; 123 S.C. 199, 116 S.E. 97. Messrs. Williams Busbee, of Aiken, for Respondent, cite: As to propriety of court refusing to charge requestswhen such requests require that jury be charged as to sufficiencyor insufficiency of evidence adduced: 23 C.J.S. p. 701, Sec. 1166; 103 S.E. 544, 115 S.C. 8; 23 C.J.S. p. 688, Sec. 1153; 138 S.E. 835, 140 S.C. 325; 112 S.E. 78, 119 S.C. 134; 84 S.C. 526, 66 S.E. 1042, 137 A.S.R. 855. As to it being proper for charge of contributory negligenceto be contained in various parts of the general chargeto jury: 87 S.C. 324, 69 S.E. 513. As to duty of employerto furnish safe place to work and to warn employeeof any danger that might be unknown to employee: 35 Am.Jur. p. 610-613, Secs. 183, 184; 53 A.L.R. 387. As toverdict, when reasonable, being allowed to stand despitetechnical error: 149 S.E. 111, 151 S.C. 391.