Campbell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court. — Hon. E. L». Edwards, Judge. (1) Where the evidence was very close, as in this case, as to whether the defendant’s engine set fire to the buildings or whether they took fire from other-causes, and where the evidence did not show from what particular engine or engines the fire escaped, it-was prejudicial error to permit the witness, Mrs. Greenup, to testify that, about two weeks before this fire, cinders from some one of defendant’s…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court. — Hon. E. L». Edwards, Judge. (1) Where the evidence was very close, as in this case, as to whether the defendant’s engine set fire to the buildings or whether they took fire from other-causes, and where the evidence did not show from what particular engine or engines the fire escaped, it-was prejudicial error to permit the witness, Mrs. Greenup, to testify that, about two weeks before this fire, cinders from some one of defendant’s engines set. fire to some corn .shucks in front of her door, and that, since the fire she found cinders in clothes in her back…
1Opinion of the CourtMacfarlane, J.
This is an action to recover damages, as alleged, by the burning of plaintiff’s building, fences, shrubbery, etc., by fire communicated from one of defendant’s locomotives. The petition charged negligence on the part of defendant in permitting fire to escape. The answer was a general denial.
It is agreed by counsel that .the evidence, though circumstantial, tended to prove that the fire, which consumed plaintiff’s property, w;as communicated from one of defendant’s engines while being operated on its road. The court permitted a recovery under section 2615, of the statute, without proof of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railroad v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Field v. New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Coale v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Martin, Admx. v. N. York N. England R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
- Patton v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- McGuire v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Matthews v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Lesser Cotton Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- Charlton v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Dunning v. Maine Central RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1897
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.