Wheeler v. Albany & Northern Railway Co.
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Powell, J.
In an action against a railway company for negligently communicating fire through sparks from a passing engine to adjacent property, the defendant admitted that the fire was communicated by the engine named, but offered proof that the engine was equipped with a first-class standard spark-arrester; also the’ testimony of the engineer that at the time in question it was being operated in the usual and *440 ordinary manner, and that no more sparks were emitted than were necessary in the running of the train; the plaintiff submitted proof that this same engine also communicated two other fires, to adjacent property, on the same day, and that as it passed the plaintiff’s premises it was “puffing and blowing” more than usual: Held, that while the plaintiff’s case was very weak, nevertheless, under the testimony, .the facts proved and the inferences to be drawn therefrom were not so entirely free from issue as to justify the court in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment reversed.
Action for damages, from city court of Cordele — Judge Henderson presiding. March. 12, 1908. Argued June 10, Decided June 18, 1908. Crum & Jones, for plaintiff. J. T. Hill, Maynard & Hooper, for defendant.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.