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.
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.
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.