Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Prior

Citations

• 34 Fla. 271

Syllabus

<p>1. A declaration against a railroad company alleging that it was the duty of the company under the act of 1887, Chapter 3742, to erect and maintain suitable fences on the sides of its railroad track sufficient to exclude and turn live stock therefrom, and that the company failed to erect and maintain such fence at a point on the road not in a town or city or at a public road crossing, and by means of such neglect plaintiff’s cows of certain value mentioned strayed upon the track at the point not fenced and were killed by a passing train of the company, states a good cause of action.</p> <p>:2. The testimony showed that a railroad company entered into a contract with L. to furnish cross-ties delivered on the track, and that L. employed J. to haul the ties to the track; J. being examined for the defense was asked on what terms he was eniployed to haul the ties, and answered that L. paid him so much? per tie, and he was not paid by the day. On objection of plaintiff the question and answer were ruled out: Held, That L- and J. were not strangers to the company in getting and hauling the ties, and that it was wholly immaterial, so far as defendant’s liability was concerned, whether J. was employed by the day, or so much per tie.</p> <p>3. Although a modification of a charge requested by a defendant may not contain a correct proposition of law, yet if the charge-as requested and as modified by the court states the law more favorably for the defendant than he is entitled to on the evidence, and it further affirmatively appears that no injury could have been done the defendant by giving the charge as modified, the judgment will not be reversed on account of the charge.</p> <p>4. A plaintiff and another witness in his behalf testified that they were familiar with the market value of cows in the county where plaintiff’s cows were killed and stated the value of the-cows killed. Defendant offered no evidence in contradiction of the value placed on the cows by plaintiff and h