Maull v. Wilson

2 Del. 443

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 5, 1838
• Status: Published

Opinion

The Court

charged the jury—

1st. That if the fire were wilfully and directly thrown on the hay, this action could not be sustained.

Wootten and Rogers, for plaintiff. C. G. Ridgely, for defendants.

2d. That if the fire arose from mere accident without any negligence on the part of defendants, they were not liable.

3d. That if the fire fell on or was communicated to the hay, not merely by accident, but by the carelessness and negligence of defendants, they were answerable in this action in damages to the full value of the property destroyed.

The jury must be satisfied that the fire originated from the defendants. Presumptive or circumstantial evidence of this would be sufficient if it was so strong as to satisfy the mind of the fact. The plaintiff was bound to make such circumstances out in proof; and, additionally, to show that the defendants were guilty of carelessness or negligence in the use of their fire, so as to occasion the burning.

Verdict for defendants.