Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Stinson

Citations

• 74 Miss. 453

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence. Res gestee. Agent. Declarations.</p> <p>The declaration of a railroad section foreman, who set out fire on the right of way of a railroad company, while the fire is yet burning, as to the origin of the fire, are admissible in evidence in an action against the railroad company for loss resulting from the fire, as part of the res gestee.</p> <p>'2. Pire. Damages. Negligence.</p> <p>The setting' out of fire on one’s own land may be, and is, under some circumstances, sufficient proof of negligence to entitle the owner of adjoining lands to recover damag'es caused by the spread of the fire.</p> <p>3. Same. Contn'ibutory negligence.</p> <p>One who uses his land in a natural and ordinary way, for purposes to which it is suited, is not required to anticipate negligence by a railway company whose track is adjacent, and his failure to so manage his business as to protect his property from loss against such negligence, is not contributory neg'ligence on his part.</p> <p>4. Railroad. Section foreman. Scope of agency. Judicial knowledge.</p> <p>Where there is no dispute as to a railroad section foreman’s agency, tlie court will take knowledge of the fact that it was his duty to keep both track and right of way in proper condition.</p> <p>5. Compbomisic. Offers. Statement of value.</p> <p>The fact that a plaintiff has offered to accept a sum of money in full settlement of damages for the destruction of his property by fire, and stated the property to be of such value, does not preclude him, on the rejection of the offer, from recovering such greater sum as the proof may warrant.</p>