Davis v. Providence & Worcester Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort under the Gen. Sts. c. 63, § 101, to recover damages for the destruction of the plaintiff’s property by fire communicated thereto by a locomotive engine of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Tort under the Gen. Sts. c. 63, § 101, to recover damages for the destruction of the plaintiff’s property by fire communicated thereto by a locomotive engine of the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., the following facts were admitted: The defendant was not the owner of the railroad, over which the engine was running at the time and place of the fire,'but the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad Company, or trustees thereof, were the owners of the road and franchise, and were operating the same by drawing their regular trains over this division of their road. The…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
It has been settled by recent decisions that under the provisions of the Gen. Sts. e. 63, § 101, a railroad corporation may be held liable for damage by fire, communicated by a loco* *136motive engine used upon its track, although the engine belongs to another corporation which is using the track under a lease or other agreement. Ingersoll v. Stochbridge & Pittsfield Railroad, 8 Allen, 438. Daniels v. Hart, 118 Mass. 543. In the former of these two cases, the defendant had leased its road to another corporation, which, by the terms of the lease, was doing with its own engines and servants the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Daniels v. HartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wall v. PlattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Arrowsmith v. Nashville & D. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · 1893
- Nugent v. Boston, Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1888
- Brownell v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Quested v. Newburyport & Amesbury Horse RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879