Smith v. Anders

94 So. 394, 152 La. 783, 1922 La. LEXIS 2417
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 27, 1922
DocketNo. 23883
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 So. 394 (Smith v. Anders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Anders, 94 So. 394, 152 La. 783, 1922 La. LEXIS 2417 (La. 1922).

Opinion

ST. PAUL, J.

[1,2] Plaintiff .sues for the cost of replacing a sawmill destroyed by fire through the alleged negligence of the defendants, the lessees thereof. It is charged that the night watchman was not on duty at the time the fire started. The evidence shows this to be so; but it also shows that when plaintiff operated the mill himself he employed no night watchman at any time, and nothing in the lease required the defendant to keep a night watchman about the premises. The evidence further shows that the mill was not equipped with proper appliances (or appliances at all) for fighting fire; so that it does not appear that the night watchman, even if present, could have done anything to control the fire.

The trial judge found no evidence of negligence in the defendants, and rejected plaintiff’s demand. This judgment is correct.

'Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

O’NIELL, J., being absent from the state, takes no part in the decision of this case.

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

Related

Arrowhead Springs Co. v. United States
67 Ct. Cl. 211 (Court of Claims, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 So. 394, 152 La. 783, 1922 La. LEXIS 2417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-anders-la-1922.