Opinion
15956
June 6, 1947.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; William H. Grimball, Judge.
Action by the South Carolina State Highway Department against Isthmian Steamship Company for damages to plaintiff's bridge resulting from being struck by a steamship allegedly under direction, operation, and control of defendant, its agents and servants. From an order overruling the defendant's objection to the jurisdiction of the court over defendant, defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Messrs. Moore Mouzon, of Charleston, for Appellant, cite: As to defendant not being before the Court and the purported service of process being a nullity: 123 S.C. 515, 116 S.E. 101; 66 S.Ct. Rep. 1218, 90 L.Ed. 1220; 55 F. Supp. 670. As to defendant not "doing business" in South Carolina so as to be subject to the jurisdiction of the State's Court: 172 S.C. 415; 234 U.S. 579, 58 L.Ed. 1479; 176 S.C. 59; 207 S.C. 226, 36 S.E.2d 465; 66 S.Ct. Rep. 1218, 90 L.Ed. 1220; 322 U.S. 111, 88 L.Ed. 1170, 64 S.Ct. 851; 1946 A.M.C. 1319; 95 S.E. (Va.) 392, L.R.A. 1918 D, 289; 54 F. Supp. 376.
Mr. John M. Daniel, Attorney General, of Columbia, and Messrs. Huger Sinkler and Augustine T. Smythe, of Charleston, for Respondent, cite: As to when a foreign corporation is subject to the jurisdiction of the State's court and amenable to its process: 38 S.E.2d 242 (S.C.); 66 S.Ct. Rep. 154. As to the question of principal and agent: 2 Am. J. 162; 66 S.Ct. Rep. 1218; 48 F. Supp. 848. Messrs. Moore Mouzon, of Charleston, in Reply, for Appellant, cite: As to agent not being responsible for acts or omissions of sub-agent: 4 S.C. 381; 72 S.C. 465.
June 6, 1947.
Judgment upon the appeal of The South Carolina State Highway Department, plaintiff in this action, against Isthmian Steamship Company, defendant, and respondent in that appeal but appellant here, was filed this day. 43 S.E.2d 132. It holds that the Company waived its objections to the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County. That court finally overruled such objections and the Company, defendant below, excepted and seeks review of that action in this appeal. But whether there was error has become a moot question by reason of the result of the prior appeal. Under these circumstances the appeal is dismissed. 3 Am. Jur. 308 et seq., Appeal and Error, Sec. 733; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, Sec. 1362, p. 1967 et seq.; Wallingford Russell v. Benson, 17 S.C. 591; Cantwell v. Williams, 35 S.C. 602, 14 S.E. 549; Burgess v. Crumpton, 93 S.C. 562, 77 S.E. 356; Page v. Page, 167 N.C. 350, 83 S.E. 627.