{
  "id": 1438651,
  "name": "Fort Smith, Subiaco and Rock Island Railroad Company v. Humphrey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fort Smith, Subiaco & Rock Island Railroad v. Humphrey",
  "decision_date": "1931-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "428",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ark. 428"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "55 S. W. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S. W. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ark. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 S. W. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 Ark. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1369512
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/171/0034-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2659,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3266850692839621
    },
    "sha256": "222cce1262810b5fefdf7710c3fc892b8e663a2fffd21861e31c17aa645eb767",
    "simhash": "1:be8745c4b061f16d",
    "word_count": 476
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:33.560918+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fort Smith, Subiaco and Rock Island Railroad Company v. Humphrey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Kirby, J.\nThis appeal is prosecuted by the railroad company from a judgment for damages against it for negligently permitting fire to spread from its right-of-way to the lands of appellee and destroy the trees, grass and fence post thereon.\nThe testimony on the part of appellant tends to show that its section crew was burning fireguard on the 13th of August, near the land of appellee, it being explained that a fireguard was the burning off of the grass on the right-of-way in order to prevent damage from fires extending to adjoining lands caused by the running of trains; that the fires were put out when the right-of-way was burned off; that they were burning fireguard on the particular day and quit in the afternoon when a rain came up and put out the fires.\nOther testimony tended to show that a tree on the right-of-way began burning and was still burning that night. That after it had fallen, the fire was still burning on the stump, and that it spread and burned across the right-of-way to the lands of appellee and destroyed about 35 acres of pasture, some trees and some fence posts; some of the testimony showing that the land burned over ivas damaged at least $5 per acre.\nThere was some testimony indicating that the fire might have originated at a place 'off the right-of-way where some women were washing during the day.\nThe jury returned a verdict for appellee for $100 damages, and found against him on his complaint for personal injuries, resulting from fighting the fire, and the court also assessed an attorney\u2019s fee of $50.\nThe testimony warranted the jury in finding that the fire that caused the damage ivas set out by the servants of appellant and negligently allowed to spread to and bum over appellee\u2019s land, causing the damages thereto. Section 8569, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest; K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Cecil, 171 Ark. 34, 283 S. W. 1; K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 119 Ark. 147, 171 S. W. 484.\nThe court correctly instructed the jury as to the measure of damages for the destruction of the trees, etc. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Ayre, 57 Ark. 371, 55 S. W. 159; K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, supra.\nNeither was error committed in the allowance of the attorney\u2019s fee provided by the statute, which was not shown to be excessive, nor in the court\u2019s fixing the fee after a hearing on the motion upon testimony adduced without the intervention of a jury, none being asked. K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Cecil, supra.\nWe find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Kirby, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James B. McDonough, for appellant.",
      "Cochran \u2022& Arnett, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fort Smith, Subiaco and Rock Island Railroad Company v. Humphrey.\nOpinion delivered October 19, 1931.\nJames B. McDonough, for appellant.\nCochran \u2022& Arnett, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0428-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 470
}