Legal Opinion

Pulsifer v. Berry

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 13, 1895PublishedCited by 14 opinions

On exceptions. This was an action on the case for negligence, in which there was a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the injury to his premises, in Poland, was caused by the defendants’ negligent acts while burning and clearing a railroad location.

Read the full summary

On exceptions. This was an action on the case for negligence, in which there was a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the injury to his premises, in Poland, was caused by the defendants’ negligent acts while burning and clearing a railroad location. The plaintiff took the following exceptions to the rulings of the court in matters of evidence : To the ruling of'the court permitting the defendants to show the rain-fall in Lewiston ; permitting the defendants’ engineer to testify what is usually done, in the construction of railroads, in the way of clearing the road location…

1Opinion of the CourtWiiitehouse, J.

This is an action to recover damages fin-an injury to the trees on the plaintiff’s lot, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants in omitting to take proper precautions to prevent the spreading of the fires kindled by them on the land of the Portland and Rumford Falls Railway, then in the possession of the defendants for the purpose of constructing a railroad.

The plaintiff 'introduced evidence tending to show that the fire on his lot caught from burning brush heaps which had not been sufficiently watched and guarded by the defendants’ servants.

The defendants introduced…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ferguson v. . HubbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Hamilton v. Des Moines Valley R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1872
  3. Higgins v. DeweyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Judd v. FargoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  5. Hinckley v. Inhabitants of BarnstableMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Rudd v. ByrnesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Ginn v. Penobscot CompanySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
  3. Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Texas Holding Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Hunter v. TotmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
  5. Yovovich v. Falls City Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API