Wald v. Louisville, E. & St. L.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1892
• Citation: 92 Ky. 645,18 S.W. 850
• Parties: Wald et al. v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

18 S.W. 850

92 Ky. 645

Wald et al. v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 3, 1892

Appeal from Louisville law and equity court.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Lewis Wald & Co. against the Louisville, Evansville & St Louis Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed to the superior court, where the judgment was affirmed, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Bennett J.

The appellants, a mercantile firm in the city of Cincinnati, had one Blocher employed as their traveling agent to sell their merchandise to customers in different parts of the country. On the 20th day of July, 1888, said agent was traveling on the appellee's road, as passenger, in the service of the appellants as such agent, having three trunks of samples on board the train, checked as baggage to Booneville, Ind., a small town at which there was a way station. The train arrived at Booneville on the 20th of July, about 9:15 p. m and the agent got off the train at that place. The trunks were also put off, and placed at his disposal. But, doubtless preferring to leave the trunks at the depot until the next day, he did not take them to the hotel to which he went, and which was not far off; and the appellee's agent took charge of the trunks, and put them in the depot for safe-keeping. The depot was a frame building, about 12 years old, and the roof was covered with shingles. About half past 9 o'clock, and after the appellee's agents were through with their business for the night, the depot was closed, and the agents went to their respective homes, not leaving the depot in charge of a watchman. About half past 7 p. m. a traction-engine was put off the appellee's cars at the depot, which was moved about 40 or 45 feet from the depot building, but still on the appellee's ground, and the persons in charge of the engine, 8 or 10 in number commenced putting water in the boiler of the engine, which the appellee's agent probably observed; and, after the appellee's agents left, the persons in charge of the engine supplied the furnace with light, dry wood, and, by 12 o'clock at night, the engine was moved off the appellee's grounds by the steam produced by the firing of said wood. About two or three hours thereafter the depot was discovered to be on fire at the east end of the building, the engine having been nearest to that end. The depot and contents, including the appellants' three trunks and contents, were consumed by the fire. The appellants sought in the court below to recover the value of the said trunks, upon the ground that the fire occurred and the trunks were consumed by the negligence of the appellee. The court instructed the jury, when the evidence was concluded, to find for the appellee. Upon appeal to the superior...