*1 TERM, SPRING 1910. 281 v. Merritt Railroad. We notice in the tbe demurrer judgment is overruled and with,

the defendant taxed all the costs. There no con- tention that the demurrer is>frivolous, judgment should have been that the defendant answer over. modified, As judgment Affirmed.

M.W. MERRITT v. LINE RAILROAD. ATLANTIC COAST

(Filed March, 1910.) 31 Penalty Interpretation—Railroads—“Jim Crow Car”— Statutes — Separate Accommodations —Direction of Conductor. company fully aWhen faith com- and in plied requiring equal with the statute furnish to accommodations on its train for no the white and colored penalties thereunder be recovered reason of the con- merely directing passengers ductor coach set a few white to take apart for the colored and under evidence estab- people, lishing these facts defendant’s motion for nonsuit should be granted. Revisal, 2619, 2321, secs. J., dissenting.

Clark, O. Appeal SampsoN. Guión, J., from Term, 1910, of January Civil action to recover for violation of what is com- called the Jim monly Crow car embodied in Revisal of law, secs. 2619 to 2622, inclusive. The is the evi- following dence of the plaintiff: *'On Wednesday morning, December, 1908, we went to Ivanhoe, a station on defendant’s railroad. There were four all and we tickets at us, white, bought Ivanhoe for Toma- station to hawk, the nearest our homes. We cents for paid ticket, and the distance was about ten miles. When the train came we started towards the of the white car. We steps of white car and started in white got steps go coach, go the conductor told us to into the other car. We went folks, and found a few colored told us we were in the go car. We then went out and started to into the white wrong coach, go but the conductor told us to back into colored for us in the coach, car. There was room ample go told us to into the other car we when the conductor went. in, didn’t use threats or do to make us any anything He car,’ to the car except say, pointing 'Go for colored < n . with his hand. He did not use force.” people “I was with J. H. testified for Merritt. All Boney plaintiff: started to up steps, of us had tickets. We eon- COURT. IN THE SUPREME v. into the then went other car.’ We .‘Go on said, *2 in the we were in told us negroes and some there car, colored coach, when into the go and we started out to wrong car, on back said, hand and ‘Go waved his the conductor to take came the conductor went back. When other car.’ We car, in the colored him he us why put tickets I asked our up don’t you, baggage said, your ‘You want to keep and he gear, rafting was it. My I said I you?’ usually kept of room the was plenty in a sack. There axe,' etc., tow. car. The in the colored of room and there- we the two cars for had provided separate xbut into the us to conductor ordered men, and the are white nothing did us, cuss or abuse car. He did not colored race. There the colored into the car for tell us to to coach for the except the con- room, whites with plenty was a car.” in the colored told us to ride for judg- moved and the defendant rested, here plaintiff overruled, Act. Motion the Hinsdale as of nonsuit, ment excepted. and defendant the defendant judgment plaintiff From a verdict appealed. for plaintiff. No counsel R. for defendant. Cooper

F. opinion We are of the after the case: stating Brown, J., announced the penalty to recover is not entitled the plaintiff separate for failure to provide Revisal section cars. » separate law and has-obeyed provided carrier Where equal which afford passengers white and colored cars for the accommodations, indi- is incurred statutory penalty no into a train hand or is directed vidual passenger wrong Omitting of the statutes. language manifest from the This is “All railroad com- follows: 2619 reads as section superfluities, for the accommodations but equal separate shall panies provide carrying passengers. all trains races on white and colored railroad com- furnished accommodations “Such by compartments cars or passenger by separate either panies railroad under by shall be provided which cars, passenger Commission.” Corporation and direction supervision cer- may exempt that the commission 2320 provides Section when the two 2321 provides Section roads and trains. tain imposes and section coach, in the same bemay put races cars. separate failing penalty SPEING TEEM, 1910. v. Railroad. tbe Upon testimony of tbe tbat tbe de- plaintiff appears fendant bad and in tbe statutes complied fully good faith with accommodations, cited, furnished on its equal separate train for tbe white and colored races. Assuming, as contended conductor erred by plaintiff, tbe in showing into the colored bis plaintiff car, because be bad rafting gear with him, tbat does not alter admitted fact tbe tbat so far as tbe carrier is in good concerned it bad complied faitb with tbe law and accom- cars and separate equal modations for tbe two races. being so, Tbat no statutory pen- alty is incurred. . Tbat our construction is is manifest from tbat portion cars, of tbe law which tbat tbe and accommo- provides dations, for failure to which supply given, must be furnished tbe carrier under tbe direction and supervision of tbe Corporation Commission. As said by Court, tbe Federal is tbe required equipment *3 thing, tbe failure to furnish which on tbe and brings penalty, tbe management not of tbe tbe U. S. equipment by employees. R., v. Ill. Cent. R. 183. Tbat was an action Fed., brought tbe Government for tbe by tbe penalty imposed by safety-appli ance act 2 March, of 1893. Tbe Circuit Court held tbat the penalties were incurred a failure to furnish tbe by appliances, and not becaus'e tbe em improperly managed by company’s after furnished. ployees being Tbe motion to nonsuit is sustained.

Eeversed and dismissed. of tbe dissenting: It is tbe inherent power Clark, J., C. people of this State to declare their enact public policy through Legislature, ments of tbe unless is restrained some body of tbe Constitution of tbe or of tbe United provision State States. Tbat is not tbe case with tbe cars our of requirement separate for when as legislation, requires, tbe two for such it accommodations” for both (Eev., 2619), “equal statute does State and Fed races, eral is to so construe been held constitutional both tbe courts, duty therefore, courts. sole tbe power Tbe law as to effectuate tbe intention tbe tbe Legislature. accommo- object Tbe statute to provide separate all for some white men. It is be- men, dations for not such accommodations yond were not that on this occasion controversy but were denied men, for these four “provided” man If there bad been one white thus humil- only to them. bis in the car ride, against will, “pro- iated forced to by being IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. for other statute was and tbe race, disregarded Tided” tbe tbe incurred. Tbe inmates of tbe colored car also bad to allow four white men being violated forced rights tbeir objection. tO' tbeir contrary law, against to ride in that car in tbe rafting gear Tbe should been bag put have white car If it was not to admit it into tbe where proper was far more ride, four men bad a it improper these men in tbe colored car where these were put pro- to have it ride, hibited tbe law to for tbe statute accom- requires “equal was not for one car it was modations,” and tbe tackle proper other. not proper is in train. For tbe charge Tbe conductor complete be is tbe Alter of tbe its visible Ego company, only time seems, sole it did and, indeed, representative. company, Tbe men a car for some white that But it did not provide day. for these four white men, when, through representa^ to let ,tive, refused them ride therein among forced them to ride tbe members of tbe other in tbe car which should have admitted members of that only race. Tbe discrimination .was all tbe more cruel against them when all other white men “Providing” bad a car for them. a car for other white men was no- benefit to these four white nor men, with tbe far as con- compliance law, so were cerned. Tbe statute is a delusion if tbe can, acting for tbe exclude white men thinks them proner put in tbe colored car. If be can, will, white men to require ride tbe colored be can at will colored men to permit ride in'the white'car. It would be as a defense equally in such as in say, this, case there was a car “provided” each race. If this is a car for “providing” *4 then race, acting through is conductor, supreme, and not tbe if statute. But tbe statute confers tbe con- rights, thus suspend nullify cannot or it. Whatever have for other white- company

men day, that did not room in tbe white certainly car for four men, these white and it incurred tbe thereby pen- alty provided by tbe statute. These were men in tbe bumbler walks of life and laborers. much, more, But tbe statute is meant as not than them whom an dressed, for others better perhaps, arbitrary conductor able, would or not be to force to hardly dare, might ride with tbe colored Tbe is that evidence these men tried people. car where there was room, to into tbe white TERM, SPRING v. the conductor ordered them into the other car. had to They obey. The colored men had a objected (as they do) to right to these white men in that then started riding They again into the white car and the conductor ordered them “to back” and ride among the from diffi- negroes. They any refrained culty with him and have to the courts of their State. appealed The conductor denied them them having right given the the shall statute, courts, case, have asked that the this they how- decide, men, once for that the to all white all, guarantee ever train those of humble, right among the to ride the their shall race, own be enforced. If the can to' these men and compel conductor that deny can arbitrarily

them ride other conductor among negroes, any to time do same. other white men at other to the compel any or the upon A law which for its depends suspension, operation, This individual is a nullity. will or humor of an arbitrary this Legislature passing was not the intent of the certainly statute. “under the such cars shall he furnished The that provision Commission” of-the Corporation direction and supervision con- all matters law general putting repetition a merely com- telephone telegraph railroads, steamboats cerning was It and supervision. direction under their general panies was Commission the thereby Corporation meant never require- any express or set aside suspend to empowered repeal, statute, aby common carriers this, enjoined upon such as ment, had If aby penalty. courts through and enforcible burden proving Rev., this road exempted was no evidence to and there defendant, was on.the exemption set aside The statute even alleged. nor is it it, show not Corporation through defendant, Commission. is given requirement for violation The penalty * '* * has been who “curvypassenger 2622, to Rev., fur- steamboat, train or on such accommodations nished * * * of law.” in violation a person a different within both himself squarely brought The plaintiff recover, to he is entitled statute, and the terms spirit to all other and as protection account his own both on arbitrary to the subject absolutely will be who otherwise men to order them may choose who of any conduct did. conductor here as the negroes, among ride the plaintiff. nonsuit refused Judge properly Guión fail defendant “Did the was, objection, without issue, submitted

286 IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. Insurance

I-Iardy Company. furnish, in and refuse to a accommodation to the com- plaintiff or as whites, car partment apart alleged set intended for the the complaint?” in jury “Yes,” The answered rendered having judge judg- for the as 2622. Rev., ment of $100, provided by In not lawful Carolina a my judgment, it is in North white men through compel company, in the to ride oar for the colored especially facts of both the and the negroes when white men case, objected to it of in the car for whites. and there room ground The intimated is that were laborers with a only of should have bag tools; bag tools, objectionable, but the sent to the men humiliating been without them to ride with the compelling negroes. P.W. HARDY v. ÆTNA COMPANY. INSURANCE LIFE

(Filed April, 1910.) Insurance, Interest —Uncle. Life —Insurable 1. relationship nephew of uncle and not of itself create does an one in the insurable interest of life of the other. Insurance, Inception Assign- Life —Insurable Interest —Valid at — ment —Valid. policy A taken on his of life insuran&e the insurant own himself, generally, policy life for the or benefit of his estate being may, inception, in with faith and valid assigned company, having assent of the one not an in- insured, assignment surable life of the interest when good faith, is made in and not as a cloak or cover mere wagering transaction. Appeal Allen, J., Term, 1909, B. at Fall LeNoiR. from W. complaint ap- From the Civil action heard on demurrer. : peared M. Parrott October,' 1904, Hardy, “2. That or about insured his in the defendant com- life the uncle the plaintiff, consideration and the said defendant pany, insurance, contract herein men- in its set out stipulations M. three certain Hardy the said Parrott did issue to tioned, each, being made $1,000 on his in the sum life, policies payable assigns or said executors, to the administrators 62845, said numbers policies M. and the Hardy, Parrott are deposited herewith court which policies this complaint.