Lipfeld v. Charlotte &c. R. R.

Citations

• 41 S.C. 285
• 19 S.E. 497
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 107

Syllabus

<p>1. Communicated Fires — Constitutional Law — Case Criticised. — The statute which makes a railroad company liable for fires communicated by sparks from its locomotive engines, without regard to negligence, does not violate any provision of the Constitution of the United States or of this State. McCandless v. Railroad Company, 38 S. C., 103, followed.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Lessee—Cases Criticised. — Under this statute, a lessor railroad company is not liable for fires from sparks emitted from a locomotive engine operated by its lessee. Hunter v. Railroad Company, ante, 86, followed, and Harmon v. Railroad Company, 28 S. 0., 401, distinguished.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Lease—Appeal.—Where a railroad lease provides that the lessee is to pay for new rolling stock out of the income, and if that be insufficient, certificates of indebtedness shall be issued by the lessor, and if not so paid for, that the lessee shall be repaid therefor by the lessor at the end of the lease, or sooner, this court cannot hold on appeal that the lessor was owner of the engine that caused the fire, because (1) the lease does not show that the lessor was such owner, (2) the trial judge refused to submit the fact of ownership to the jury, and (3) he was not asked so to construe the lease.</p>