Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 2 Div. 614

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtANDERSON, C.J. ANDERSON, C.J.
Citation72 So. 311,196 Ala. 683
Docket Number2 Div. 614
Decision Date11 May 1916
PartiesALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. LOVEMAN COMPRESS CO.

72 So. 311

196 Ala. 683

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO.
v.
LOVEMAN COMPRESS CO.

2 Div. 614

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 11, 1916


On Rehearing, June 30, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; Bernard Harwood, Judge.

Action by the Loveman Compress Company against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, for the destruction of a compress and equipment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Count 2 of the complaint is as follows:

Plaintiff claims of defendant the sum of $15,000 damages for that on, to wit, the 28th day of January, 1914, defendant its servant or agent, while acting within the line or scope of their employment, negligently set fire to and destroyed the following described property. [ Here follows a description of the building and machinery which are alleged to have been adjacent to and near defendant's right of way at or near or in the town of Epps, Ala., in Sumter county.] Plaintiff avers that on said date plaintiff was the owner of said property, and was damaged in the amount sued for

Plea 8 was, in substance, that plaintiff had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit, in that plaintiff had insured the property which was destroyed by fire in an insurance company for $5,000, and that after the fire and destruction of said compress, damages for which this suit is brought, the insurance company paid to plaintiff the insured value of said compress, and plaintiff accepted from said insurance company said payment in satisfaction of its claim, and has assigned any right of action which it may have had with respect thereto to the insurance company. The indemnity contract referred to sufficiently appeared. The following charges were refused to the defendant:

(1) Affirmative charge.

(3) If the jury believe from the evidence that the damage complained of in the complaint was caused by sparks from defendant's engine, run and operated upon its said road the plaintiff is not entitled to recover if the jury should further believe from the evidence that defendant's engine was equipped with modern and improved spark arresters, such as are used on well-regulated railways.
(5) The evidence is uncontroverted that the engine which it is alleged caused the fire was in good condition at the time of the injury complained of.
(9) Under the evidence in this case, the engine of the plaintiff was properly handled and properly equipped, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this instance.

(24) Same as 3, with amplification as to inspection.

(8) The court charges the jury that the mere fact, if it be a fact, that the property of plaintiff was discovered to be on fire soon after the passage of one of defendant's engines raised no presumption that said fire had originated by sparks escaping from said engine.
(12) The court charges the jury that while the law is that, when a fire is proven to have been caused by fire escaping from an engine of the railroad company, the presumption of negligence arises, it is not a rule of liability, but only casts upon the defendant the burden of proof to show that its engine was properly equipped and properly handled, and when the railroad company repels the inference of negligence by proof of the proper construction of its engine, and the use of proper appliances and careful management, the plaintiff cannot recover, unless the plaintiff should reasonably satisfy the evidence from the jury of other negligence or want of care on the part of the 312 company.
(4) If the jury believe from the evidence that defendant used a spark arrester of an approved pattern in genuine use, which, upon inspection, by competent persons at or about the time of the fire mentioned, appeared to be in good condition, and that said engine was run and handled by a competent and skillful engineer in the ordinary manner of handing such engine, at the time and place when and where said injury occurred, and if you should further believe that said fire originated by the sparks escaping through such spark arrester, the defendant is not liable for the injury resulting from such fire, and your verdict should be for defendant.

A.G. & E.D. Smith and J.T. Stokely, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Foster, Verner & Rice, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C.J.

Defendant's plea 8 is such a plea in abatement as is required to be verified by section 5332 of the Code of 1907, and was demurred to because not verified, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. It might be that it could have been stricken on this account, but it could also have been eradicated by a demurrer. Moore Bros. v. Cowan, 173...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Illinois Fuel Co. v. M. & O. Railroad Co., No. 25850.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 11, 1928
    ...Central Railroad Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 580; Gulf Lumber Co. v. Chapman & Co., 159 Ala. 444; Alabama Railroad Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 196 Ala. 683; Steiner & Lobman v. Land & Lumber Co., 120 Ala. 128; Bailey Iron Works v. Railroad Co., 4 Ala. App. 660; Washington Ry. Co. v. M. & O. Rail......
  • Alabama Great So. R. Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., Civ. No. 6957.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • January 3, 1955
    ...piece of railroad business. This being so, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 1916, 196 Ala. 127 F. Supp. 372 683, 72 So. 311, vouchsafes no consolation to either II. Application of the Detour Agreement Recognizing that on motion for summary judgment the court's function......
  • Batson v. State, 6 Div. 798
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1927
    ...the last continuance," and for this reason the demurrer was properly sustained thereto. Code of 1923, § 9471; A.G.S.R. Co. v. Loveman Co., 196 Ala. 683, 72 So. 311; Penn. v. Edwards, 50 Ala. 63. Aside from the lack of verification, demurrer to said pleas was properly sustained. It was sough......
  • Coston-Riles Lumber Co. v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co., 3 Div. 582.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 8, 1923
    ...the subjects of decision, in Ala. Red Cedar Co. v. Tenn. Valley Bank, 200 Ala. 622, 76 So. 980; Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 196 Ala. 683, 72 So. 311; Ala. City G. & A. R. Co. v. Kyle, 202 Ala. 552, 554, 81 So. 54; Fairhope Single Tax Corp. v. Melville, 193 Ala. 289, 304, 69 S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Illinois Fuel Co. v. M. & O. Railroad Co., No. 25850.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 11, 1928
    ...Central Railroad Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 580; Gulf Lumber Co. v. Chapman & Co., 159 Ala. 444; Alabama Railroad Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 196 Ala. 683; Steiner & Lobman v. Land & Lumber Co., 120 Ala. 128; Bailey Iron Works v. Railroad Co., 4 Ala. App. 660; Washington Ry. Co. v. M. & O. Rail......
  • Alabama Great So. R. Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., Civ. No. 6957.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • January 3, 1955
    ...piece of railroad business. This being so, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 1916, 196 Ala. 127 F. Supp. 372 683, 72 So. 311, vouchsafes no consolation to either II. Application of the Detour Agreement Recognizing that on motion for summary judgment the court's function......
  • Batson v. State, 6 Div. 798
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1927
    ...the last continuance," and for this reason the demurrer was properly sustained thereto. Code of 1923, § 9471; A.G.S.R. Co. v. Loveman Co., 196 Ala. 683, 72 So. 311; Penn. v. Edwards, 50 Ala. 63. Aside from the lack of verification, demurrer to said pleas was properly sustained. It was sough......
  • Coston-Riles Lumber Co. v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co., 3 Div. 582.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 8, 1923
    ...the subjects of decision, in Ala. Red Cedar Co. v. Tenn. Valley Bank, 200 Ala. 622, 76 So. 980; Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 196 Ala. 683, 72 So. 311; Ala. City G. & A. R. Co. v. Kyle, 202 Ala. 552, 554, 81 So. 54; Fairhope Single Tax Corp. v. Melville, 193 Ala. 289, 304, 69 S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT