Boyce v. Cheshire Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In case, the declaration set forth, that ou the 3d day of September, 1858, the defendants owned a railroad passing through Troy, and used upon it steam locomotive engines, the plaintiff owned a barn and other buildings and property, situated in said Troy near said railroad ; and the said defendants so conducted their business, that the plaintiff’s said barn, &c., was set fire to, and consumed by fire from their locomotive engines, to his damage, &c.
Read the full summary
In case, the declaration set forth, that ou the 3d day of September, 1858, the defendants owned a railroad passing through Troy, and used upon it steam locomotive engines, the plaintiff owned a barn and other buildings and property, situated in said Troy near said railroad ; and the said defendants so conducted their business, that the plaintiff’s said barn, &c., was set fire to, and consumed by fire from their locomotive engines, to his damage, &c. There was evidence tending to show, that one of the defendants’ freight trains, drawn by one engine, assisted up an ascending grade by another…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
Two formal exceptions only are here taken ; one is “ that no evidence is admissible in -relation to any other engine than those here in question,” and the other, “that no evidence is admissible as to the effect of any other engine except those in question here, unless it is shown to be in the same condition.” It is here only necessary to consider the grounds upon which those two exceptions are found, because if other objections had been'made they might have been obviated, or they might have been yielded to, and the testimony offered might not have been put in. What objections there might have…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re Matthew G.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- Moore v. KidderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875