Clark v. Foot

8 Johns. 421
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 421 (Clark v. Foot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. Foot, 8 Johns. 421 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The point to be tried was, whether there was negligence on the part of Esc/, or his agent for Foot was as much accountable for the negligéncc of his servant, whilst employed in his business, as if the fire ' had spreád by his own neglect.

It is a lawful act for a person to burn his fallow; and if his1 neighbour is injured thereby, he will have a remedy, - by action on the case, if there be sufficient ground to impute the act to the negligence or misconduct of the defendant' or his servants. ,

Should a man’s house get on fire, without his neglect, or default, and burn his neighbour’s, no action would lie against him, notwithstanding the fire originated in his house, because it was lawful for him to keep fire (3 Bl. Comm. 43. 1 Nay’s Max. c. 44.) The same rule would apply to this case.

Here, there is no evidence of negligence, and the jury 1 have passed on the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Duvall v. 20th Century Coal Co.
104 F. Supp. 725 (W.D. Kentucky, 1952)
Weis-Patterson Lumber Co. v. King
177 So. 313 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co.
94 N.E. 431 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Pfeiffer v. Aue
115 S.W. 300 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1908)
Tucker v. Mack Paving Co.
61 A.D. 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Mattoon v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R.
60 N.W. 69 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Needham v. King
54 N.W. 891 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Loeber v. Roberts
17 N.Y.S. 378 (Superior Court of New York, 1892)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Nitsche
9 L.R.A. 750 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co.
25 N.E. 259 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Pennsylvania Co. v. Whitlock
99 Ind. 16 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Read v. Pennsylvania Railroad
44 N.J.L. 280 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1882)
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis R. W. Co. v. Culver
60 Ind. 469 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)
Boyd v. Graham
5 Mo. App. 403 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1878)
Hays' Administrator v. Miller
13 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 320 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Louisville & Portland Canal Co. v. Murphy
72 Ky. 522 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1872)
Cahill v. Eastman
18 Minn. 324 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1872)
U. P. R. W. Co. v. Rollins
5 Kan. 167 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1869)
Indianapolis & Cincinnati Railroad v. Paramore
31 Ind. 143 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1869)
Losee v. Buchanan
61 Barb. 86 (New York Supreme Court, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Johns. 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-foot-nysupct-1811.