Troxler v. Richmond & Danville Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil AotioN, to recover damages for tlie burning plaintiff’s fence, tried at December Term, 1875, of Guilfoed Superior Court, before bis Honor, Judge Kerr.
Read the full summary
Civil AotioN, to recover damages for tlie burning plaintiff’s fence, tried at December Term, 1875, of Guilfoed Superior Court, before bis Honor, Judge Kerr. On the trial in the court below, the plaintiff, examined as a witness, testified: That on the 9th of April, 1873, about one hundred panels of his fence was destroyed by fire; that the fence was joined, to another fence at nearly a right angle, which latter began about a rail’s length from a cattle guard on defendant’s road, thence running west for a short distance, when an angle was made, and thence north, bearing away from the line of…
1Opinion of the CourtRea.de, J.
I. His Honor charged the jury that “if the ■defendant had placed near its track a pile of old, dry, combustible sills, and that fire from the defendant’s engine first ignited the sills and thence the plaintiff’s fence wms burned, then the defendant was guilty of negligence.”
The correctness of this charge is too plain for controversy.
II. Admitting that to be so, still the defendant insists that .plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and therefore was not entitled to recover.
It is not stated in what the alleged contributory negligence 'consisted, but there was evidence that the pile…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Aycock v. Raleigh & Augusta Air-Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Knott v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Kelsey v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- Railway Co. v. DoddSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- St. Johns & Halifax Railroad v. RansomSupreme Court of Florida · 1894