Union Pac. R. R. v. Jones

9 Colo. 379
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedOctober 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 Colo. 379 (Union Pac. R. R. v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Union Pac. R. R. v. Jones, 9 Colo. 379 (Colo. 1886).

Opinion

Elbert, J.

We think it sufficiently appears from the testimony of Van Riper that the defendant company operated the Boulder Valley road at the time of the fire. The witness was the station agent of the defendant company at Boulder; and while his testimony, to the effect that the Union Pacific Railway Company “ran its trains over the Boulder Valley road,” is general, and does not clearly go to the date of the fire, the act of the company in sending him, soon after the fire, to see the appellee, Jones, respecting it, and to report concerning it, but without power to settle the damages, is inconsistent with any other theory than that the defendant company was operating the road at the time of the fire, and regarded itself as a party concerned in any claim .for damages resulting therefrom. From all the evidence, it is also reasonably clear that the appellee’s grass was fired by sparks from a locomotive attached to one of the defendant’s freight trains.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Adcock
269 S.W. 144 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Moose v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
212 S.W. 645 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1919)
Union Pac. R'y Co. v. De Busk
12 Colo. 294 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Colo. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-pac-r-r-v-jones-colo-1886.