Indianola Compress & Storage Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. in Mississippi

• Decision Date: 10 January 1916
• Docket Number: 17069
• Citation: 110 Miss. 602,70 So. 703
• Parties: INDIANOLA COMPRESS & STORAGE CO. ET AL v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. IN MISSISSIPPI
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

70 So. 703

110 Miss. 602

INDIANOLA COMPRESS & STORAGE CO. ET AL v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. IN MISSISSIPPI

No. 17069

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 10, 1916

APPEAL from the chancery court of Sunflower county. HON. E. N THOMAS, Chancellor.

Suit by the Southern Railway Company in Mississippi against the Indianola Compress & Storage Company and others. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.

This suit was begun by a bill of chancery by the appellee to enjoin the appellants from prosecuting suits at law against appellee. The bill alleges that the Indianola Compress &amp Storage Company, which had been destroyed by fire nearly a year previously, had instituted a suit in the circuit court in which it was claimed that the fire originated through the negligence of the appellee or its servants, and judgment was asked for the damages sustained. The bill alleged that there were a large number of insurance companies and a large number of individuals whose property had been destroyed in the fire who were asserting claims against the complainant. It alleged that three of these individuals had instituted three separate suits at law against appellee upon the same grounds, and that the claims of all the defendants were based upon the same state of facts, and that the insurance policies covering the property destroyed in the fire contained clauses of subrogation in favor of the companies for whatever they might be compelled to pay because of the destruction of property covered by the policy. The bill alleged that it was claimed by the defendants that the complainant had constructed a spur track leading around the compress building, and had caused certain cars, occupied by employees, to be set out on said track, and allowed same to remain there for several days, and to be used as camp cars, in which a few workmen lived, and that, through the carelessness and negligence of these employees of the complainant, the fire had originated, which ignited dry grass and spread to the lot belonging to the compress company and ignited the cotton stored there, as a result of which the property was destroyed by fire. The bill alleged that the claim of the defendants that the fire originated through the negligence or fault of the complainant is not true, but that the fire originated some distance from the cars of the complainant, and not through its fault, or that of its servants, but on property not belonging to it and through sources over which it had no control. The bill alleges that, aside from the suits filed by four of the defendants, other defendants were threatening suit, and that the insurance companies were instigating the other defendants in bringing suits...