Peerless Mfg. Co. v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. R.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1905
• Citation: 61 A. 511,73 N.H. 328
• Parties: PEERLESS MFG. CO. v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. R. HARPIN v. SAME.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

61 A. 511

73 N.H. 328

PEERLESS MFG. CO.

v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. R.

HARPIN

v. SAME.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Sullivan.

June 6, 1905.

Transferred from Superior Court; Wallace, Chief Judge.

Separate actions by Olive B. Harpin and the Peerless Manufacturing Company against the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. There was verdict for plaintiff in each case, and the cases were transferred from the superior court upon defendant's exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Case, for goods destroyed by fire while in the custody of the defendants as common carriers. Transferred upon the defendants' exceptions to the denial of their motions for nonsuits and to the admission of evidence as to the fire protection provided by the city of Taunton, Mass., in the vicinity of the defendants' freight yards. The evidence in the first case tended to prove the following facts: The plaintiffs delivered a case of goods to the Boston & Maine Railroad at Newport, N. H., for shipment to Taunton, Mass. The Boston & Maine Railroad delivered the merchandise to the defendants at Lowell, Mass., and they hauled it to Taunton, where it arrived on Sunday morning. The car was not unloaded upon arrival, but remained upon the track near the defendants' transfer station, and was destroyed that night by a fire which started without their fault. The transfer station stood in the middle of a large freight yard, and consisted of an open shed about 400 feet long, with an office building at one end and a storehouse at the other. The fire started in the middle of the shed, and was discovered by a crossing tender when it had been burning only a few minutes; but no alarm was given, nor any attempt made to extinguish the fire or to remove the cars from its vicinity, for three-quarters of an hour. When an alarm was given, the fire department responded promptly, but considerable time was consumed in getting sufficient water to control the conflagration, owing to a scarcity of hydrants in that section of the city. Although the fire spread slowly, before it was placed under control the transfer station was burning from end to end, together with a large number of cars which stood on the tracks near it. The defendants employed no one to discover or extinguish fires on their premises, and provided no fire apparatus. If the transfer station had been equipped with hydrants and hose, two men could have controlled the fire within five minutes from the time it was discovered. The majority of those...