Hunter v. Columbia &c. R. R.

Citations

• 41 S.C. 86
• 19 S.E. 197
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 80

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal Record. — Papers embraced in the return, but not in the “Case” for appeal, may be referred to and used in the argument of counsel, and in the decision of the appeal.</p> <p>2. Communicated Fires — Case Criticised. — The statute making a railroad company liable for fires communicated by sparks from its engines, without regard to negligence, is not unconstitutional. McCandless v. Richmond &c. R. R. Company, 38 S. 0., 103, recognized and followed.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Negligence.—A complaint that alleged an agreement on the part of the defendant railroad company to remove plaintiff's gin house, a failure to do so, the firing of this building by sparks from a passing engine, and the destruction of gin house, cotton, and other property stored therein, by reason of defendant’s negligence and carelessness in not moving the gin house and in setting fire thereto, states a common law cause of action, which may be maintained, notwithstanding the statute has authorized another action for damages resulting from all commuuicated fires on the right of way.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Lessor.—Under the statute which makes every railroad corporation responsible for injuries resulting from fires communicated by its locomotive engines, all question of negligence is eliminated; but only the company operating the road is liable under this statute. ' Therefore, when such fire is communicated by the locomotive engine of a lessee, the lessor is not responsible for damages under the statute.</p>