Muckenfuss v. Southern Transportation, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Packet Delivery Co. v. State Motor Lines

    89 S.E.2d 922 (S.C. 1955)   Cited 4 times

    Messrs. Waring Brockinton, of Charleston, for Appellant, cite: As to motor carriers, properly licensed, being subjectto suit in any county through which they operate: 192 S.C. 271, 6 S.E.2d 270; 216 S.C. 160, 57 S.E.2d 69; 211 S.C. 269, 44 S.E.2d 618; 204 S.C. 369, 29 S.E.2d 486; 189 S.C. 204, 200 S.E. 819. Edward E. Saleeby, Esq., of Hartsville, for Respondent, cites: As to trial judge properly transferring action to DarlingtonCounty: 192 S.C. 271, 6 S.E.2d 270; 216 S.C. 160, 57 S.E.2d 69; 211 S.C. 269, 44 S.E.2d 618; 222 S.C. 258, 72 S.E.2d 189.

  2. Morse v. Moore Sand and Gravel Co.

    149 S.E.2d 907 (S.C. 1966)   Cited 11 times

    Nelson, Mullins, Grier Scarborough, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to at the time of the occurrence,giving rise to these actions, the tractor and trailerwere being operated solely and exclusively in Appellant'sbusiness as a dealer in sand and gravel, and were not beingused in any way that would have required Appellant toobtain a certificate of authority from the Public ServiceCommission: 168 S.C. 440, 167 S.E. 674; 244 S.C. 615, 138 S.E.2d 155. Messrs. E. Pickens Rish and A. Frank Lever, Jr., of Lexington, for Respondent, cite: As to the service on theSouth Carolina Public Service Commission being valid: 204 S.C. 369, 29 S.E.2d 486. August 29, 1966.

  3. Behling v. Rivers et al

    44 S.E.2d 618 (S.C. 1947)   Cited 6 times
    In Behling v. Rivers, 211 S.C. 269, 44 S.E.2d 618, venue in Dorchester County was upheld of an action brought there against a motor carrier defendant, on account of an accident which occurred in Colleton County, for the reason that the carrier operated in Dorchester County. The defendant carrier, who was an individual, was a resident of Colleton County. It does not expressly appear in the opinion, but it is fairly inferable that the plaintiff was a resident of the forum county of Dorchester. The authority of that case is conclusive of these.

    imony not beinga part of the res gestae, and therefore not properly admissible: 68 S.C. 462, 47 S.E. 722; 68 S.C. 304, 47 S.E. 384. As to the inadmissibility of an agent's statement, nota part of the res gestae, and made while not acting withinthe scope of his authority: 84 S.C. 190, 65 S.E. 1047; 108 S.C. 195, 93 S.E. 865; 28 S.C. 157, 5 S.E. 471. As toerror on part of Trial Judge in not submitting the factualissue, as to insurance coverage, to the jury: 157 S.C. 106, 154 S.E. 106; 162 S.C. 44, 160 S.E. 135. As to the Courtof Common Pleas of Dorchester County lacking jurisdictionto try the case as to the Defendant insurance company: 103 U.S. 205; 277 U.S. 54; 125 F.2d 208; 128 F.2d 162; 157 F. 88; 148 F. 308. Messrs. Jas. Julien Bush, of Barnwell, and J.D. Parler, of St. George, for Respondent, cite: As to complaint statinga proper cause of action: 6 S.C. 130; 14 S.E.2d 577, 197 S.C. 96; 10 S.E.2d 345, 195 S.C. 123; 185 S.E. 62, 180 S.C. 113. As to the insurance company being liable: 29 S.E.2d 486, 204 S.C. 369; 200 S.E. 819, 189 S.C. 204. As to the jurisdiction being proper: 6 S.E.2d 270, 192 S.C. 271; 158 S.C. 496, 155 S.E. 828; 171 S.C. 276, 172 S.E. 221; 10 S.E.2d 333, 195 S.C. 290. As to testimony being admissible as part of the res gestae,and also on the theory of agency: 191 S.E. 85, 183 S.C. 306; 26 S.E.2d 835, 203 S.C. 318; 36 S.E.2d 293, 204 S.C. 442; 152 S.E. 753, 156 S.C. 1; 174 S.E. 394, 172 S.C. 478; 177 S.E. 29, 162 S.C. 281; 178 S.E. 839, 175 S.C. 188. As to submission of case to jury beingproper: 195 S.C. 150, 10 S.E.2d 330. Messrs. Waring Brockinton, of Charleston, and I. Bogoslow, of Walterboro, for Appellants, in reply.