McGill Bros. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Prince J. Lexington February 1907. Three actions : 1. McGill Bros, against Seaboard Air Line Ry. 2. James W. Conner against same. 3. James W. Conner, administrator, against same. From judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. cites: Evidence of origin of lire: 13 Eney. 513-14 and note citing numerous cases; 8 Ency.
Read the full summary
Before Prince J. Lexington February 1907. Three actions : 1. McGill Bros, against Seaboard Air Line Ry. 2. James W. Conner against same. 3. James W. Conner, administrator, against same. From judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. cites: Evidence of origin of lire: 13 Eney. 513-14 and note citing numerous cases; 8 Ency. Ev. 933, note 34; 94 N. Y. Supp. 954. cite: The actions being under the statute, plaintiff is not required to show negligence: 24 S. C. 366; 31 S. C. 37; 83 S. C. 58. Rule as to admissibility of evidence when engine is identified: 48 S. E. 521.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
In these actions for the recovery of damages for injury to land caused by a fire alleged to have been set out by sparks from, one of defendant’s locomotives, the verdict was for the defendant. The actions being brought under section 2135 of the Civil Code/which makes railroad companies liable for damages from fire communicated by their locomotive engines without respect to negligence, the main issue was as to the origin of the fire. On the part of the plaintiffs there was evidence that the fire started near the railroad track soon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Grand Trunk Railroad v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hopkins v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Moore v. Atlantic Coast Line R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Laney v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
- Mitchum v. Seaboard Air Line RailwaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921