Erie Railway Co. v. Decker

• Citation: 78 Pa. 293
• Parties: Erie Railway Company <I>versus</I> Decker.
• Decision Date: 22 March 1875
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 293

78 Pa. 293

Erie Railway Company versus Decker.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 15, 1875.

March 22, 1875.

March 15th 1875.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Pike county: Of January Term 1874, No. 332 W. H. Jessup, for plaintiff in error.—A party will be held to the purpose for which the evidence was offered: Benner v. Hauser, 11 S. & R. 356; Gaines v. Commonwealth, 14 Wright 326; Piper v. White, 6 P. F. Smith 94. Evidence to show that other engines were defective was incompetent to prove that No. 458 was: Waugh v. Shunk, 8 Harris 130; Carson v. Godley, 2 Casey 111.

G. G. Waller (with whom was F. M. Crane), for defendant in error.—It is discretionary with the court below what evidence to admit in rebuttal: Young v. Edwards, 22 P. F. Smith 265; Gaines v. Commonwealth, 14 Wright 319.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, March 22d 1875.

It appears from the evidence, and it was conceded in the argument, that the only locomotive that could have fired the premises in question was that numbered 458, in charge of Alfred Carpenter, as engineer. It follows, therefore, that the condition of this engine and its management were all that were legitimately before the court. If it was properly constructed as to its furnace and smokestack, and was furnished with a spark-arresting grate of the proper character, the company would not be liable, though the building were burned by fire accidentally issuing from it: Railroad Co. v. Doak, 2 P. F. Smith 379. If, then, this engine was in a proper condition, it mattered not that every other engine, owned by the company, was without the proper appliances for preventing the ejection of coals and sparks. On the other hand, if this engine was dangerous, in this respect, it was of no consequence that all others upon the road were safe. Such being the case, it is manifest that all evidence going to prove defects in engines belonging to this company, other than the one alleged to have produced the injury complained of, was irrelevant to the issue pending, and should have been excluded. It is alleged, however, that this evidence was relevant as tending to contradict certain general statements made in the testimony of Edward C. Beirne, the defendant's stack-inspector. But we find nothing whatever in that testimony, as certified to us by the judge below, which tends to support such an hypothesis. No allusion is...