Illinois Central Railroad v. McKay
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of the first district of Hinds county. TIon. J. 13. Chrisman, Judge. The opinion states the facts. Farris was the servant of plaintiffs in charge.of the farm. There is no conflict of evidence as to his connection with the affair.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of the first district of Hinds county. TIon. J. 13. Chrisman, Judge. The opinion states the facts. Farris was the servant of plaintiffs in charge.of the farm. There is no conflict of evidence as to his connection with the affair. He admits that he knew of the danger from the fire; he was satisfied that the fire would spread; he could have-extinguished it, but intentionally refused to do so, saying that the railroad company had started the fire, and it must put it out. Plaintiffs were under the duty of making reasonable exertions to lessen their damage; and if they,…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
The appellees sued the appellant to recover the value of certain strawberry plants destroyed by fire negligently communicated by sparks from its train.
The fire was communicated on Sunday evening, and a small portion of the plants were burned that day. As to the injury to those the right of recovery is not controverted by *141appellant. The fire was, on Sunday night, checked in its progress by the exertions of those residing in the vicinity, but there was left burning a large, dry stump adjacent to another field, the sparks from which set this field on fire the next day some tim.e between 8 and 12…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Little v. HackettSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Smith v. Ogden & N. W. R.Utah Supreme Court · 1907
- Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. FieldsMississippi Supreme Court · 1940
- Illinois Central Railroad v. FryTennessee Supreme Court · 1928