Hart v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hart v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

56 S.E. 559, 144 N.C. 91, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 112

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 5, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 56 S.E. 559 (Hart v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 56 S.E. 559, 144 N.C. 91, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 112 (N.C. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Clare, C. J.

This is an action to recover the value of cord-wood burned by a fire alleged to- bave been negligently set out by sparks from the defendant’s engine. One Melton testified that as agent for the plaintiff be superintended the cutting and cording of the wood and reported, the number of cords to the plaintiff; that the number thus reported was correct, though be does not now remember the exact number; that these reports were sometimes made in writing and sometimes verbally. The written reports were admitted in evidence without objection. The plaintiff testified that the reports were made by Melton, as stated, and that be paid for the number of cords reported by him and that' be kept a record of the number. He further testified, over the defendant’s objection, what the total number was *92 which bad been reported by Melton and recorded by bimself, and which be bad paid for. This was competent. “Where a witness testifies that be has truly stated to a third person, of bis own knowledge, a fact which be bas since forgotten, the testimony of snob third party as to what the statement was is competent.” 16 Cyc., 1198 (v) ; 1 Elliott Ev., sec. 389, 390; Shear v. Van Dyke, 10 Hun., 528.

The Court charged the jury that the measure of damages was the value of the wood in the locality where it was, and not what it could be sold for elsewhere, and refused to instruct them, as prayed, that “the measure of damages was the value of. the wood standing in the woods, plus the cost of cutting.” In tbis there was no error. “When property is lost or destroyed by the negligence of another, the usual rule as to the measure of damages is the reasonable worth of the property at the time and place of its destruction.” Rippy v. Miller, 46 N. C., 480; 13 Cyc., 148 (c); Fowler v. Insurance Co., 74 N. C., 89; Grubbs v. Insurance Co., 108 N. C., 480; Boyd v. Insurance Co., 111 N. C., 378. The learned counsel for the defendant laid stress upon the word “locality,” but we think the Judge meant by this the “place,” i. e., the value of the wood corded up in the woods where it was when burnt, and that the jury must have so understood him.

No Error.

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

Clare, C. J.

This is an action to recover the value of cord-wood burned by a fire alleged to- bave been negligently set out by sparks from the defendant’s engine. One Melton testified that as agent for the plaintiff be superintended the cutting and cording of the wood and reported, the number of cords to the plaintiff; that the number thus reported was correct, though be does not now remember the exact number; that these reports were sometimes made in writing and sometimes verbally. The written reports were admitted in evidence without objection. The plaintiff testified that the reports were made by Melton, as stated, and that be paid for the number of cords reported by him and that' be kept a record of the number. He further testified, over the defendant’s objection, what the total number was *92 which bad been reported by Melton and recorded by bimself, and which be bad paid for. This was competent. “Where a witness testifies that be has truly stated to a third person, of bis own knowledge, a fact which be bas since forgotten, the testimony of snob third party as to what the statement was is competent.” 16 Cyc., 1198 (v) ; 1 Elliott Ev., sec. 389, 390; Shear v. Van Dyke, 10 Hun., 528.

The Court charged the jury that the measure of damages was the value of the wood in the locality where it was, and not what it could be sold for elsewhere, and refused to instruct them, as prayed, that “the measure of damages was the value of. the wood standing in the woods, plus the cost of cutting.” In tbis there was no error. “When property is lost or destroyed by the negligence of another, the usual rule as to the measure of damages is the reasonable worth of the property at the time and place of its destruction.” Rippy v. Miller, 46 N. C., 480; 13 Cyc., 148 (c); Fowler v. Insurance Co., 74 N. C., 89; Grubbs v. Insurance Co., 108 N. C., 480; Boyd v. Insurance Co., 111 N. C., 378. The learned counsel for the defendant laid stress upon the word “locality,” but we think the Judge meant by this the “place,” i. e., the value of the wood corded up in the woods where it was when burnt, and that the jury must have so understood him.

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 S.E. 559, 144 N.C. 91, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-atlantic-coast-line-railroad-nc-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack