Jones v. Hines

• Decision Date: 23 December 1920
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 238
• Citation: 87 So. 531,205 Ala. 145
• Parties: JONES v. HINES, Director General of Railroads.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

87 So. 531

205 Ala. 145

JONES v. HINES, Director General of Railroads.

8 Div. 238

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 23, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W.W. Harralson, Judge.

Action by Ellen Jones, for use of Axie Crutcher, against Walker D Hines, as Director General of Railroads, operating the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, for damages for setting out fire. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Bouldin & Wimberly, of Scottsboro, for appellant.

John B Tally, of Scottsboro, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Suit by appellant against appellee to recover damages for the destruction of property by fire, alleged to have been negligently communicated as the result of the equipment or operation of a locomotive on the Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis Railroad.

The cause was tried before the court without a jury; the plaintiff requesting a special finding of facts. Section 5360, Code 1907. The finding of facts was made, and the same entered upon the minutes, as provided by said section. The court found the facts to be that the plaintiff had from the evidence made out a prima facie case, leading to the reasonable belief that the property was burned by sparks from defendant's passing engine, numbered 659, operated by Engineer Ford, on February 24th, the day the property was burned. The court further found, however, there was no evidence of any sparks of unusual size or quantity emitted from the engine, and that the evidence shows without dispute that the engine was properly constructed, equipped, and operated at the time, and that therefore a prima facie case had been overcome, and judgment was entered for the defendant.

It is insisted by counsel for appellant, and not controverted by opposing counsel, that under the uniform decisions of this court, where there is a special finding of facts by the court, the consideration of the cause upon appeal is confined to the question whether the facts as found by the court are sufficient to support the judgment, and many of the authorities so holding are cited in the recent case of Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Kitchens, 201 Ala. 674, 79 So. 246.

Appellant's counsel further advances the argument that the holding of the court, to the effect that the evidence established without dispute that the engine was properly constructed, equipped and operated at the time, presented a question of law for determination, and insisted there was some evidence from which a contrary inference could be drawn. Under the view entertained by this court, this is a question unnecessary to be determined.

The statement of the court, in finding that the evidence was without dispute was but a statement of a conclusion, could well have been omitted, and might be treated as surplusage. The expression does not destroy or weaken the fact that the court did find as a matter of fact from the evidence that the engine was properly constructed, equipped, and operated at the time. That such a finding justified a judgment for the defendant is not questioned. L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Marbury Lbr. Co., 125 Ala. 237, 28 So. 438, 50 L.R.A. 620; Deason v. A.G.S.R.R. Co., 186 Ala. 100, 65 So. 172; A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. Davenport, 195 Ala. 368, 70 So. 674.

While it is conceded by all the parties that the above-stated rule, reiterated in the case of Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Kitchens, supra, still governs in cases of this character, yet we have reached the conclusion that this is erroneous for the following reasons:

The concluding...