페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

/

Page

Page Southeastern Exp. Co. v. Howell (Ala. State, Dukes v. (Miss.)

74 App.) 926 State, Dungin v. (Miss.)

185 Southerland v. State (Ala. App.). 926 State v. Dunnington (La.)

478 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Currie (Ala. State, D. & S. Motor Co. v (Ala.)

805 App.) 149 State v Eagerton (Ala.).

534 Southern R. Co. v. Lee (Miss.). 75 State, Equitable Credit Co. v. (Ala.)

802 Soutoula v. State (Ala. App.).

151 State, Equitable Credit Co. v. (Ala.)., 803 Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W., Hobbs v. State, Equitable Credit Co. v. (Ala.) 805 (Ala.) 625 State y. Farmer (La.)

664 Spain, Miller v. (Fla.). 655 State v. Fernandez (La.).

186 Sparkman V. American Nat. Ins. Co.. State, Fields v. (Ala.).

917 (Miss.) 573 State, First Nat. Bank v. (Miss.)

860 S. P. Calking & Co., Itzig Co. v. (Miss.).. 75 State v. Fontenot (La.)

668 Speed v. State (Ala. App.) 926 State, Frederick v. (Ala.)

147 Spence, Stevens v. (Miss.) 572 State, Frederick v. (Ala. App.)

146 Spivey, Smith v. (Miss.). 5 State v. Gani (La.).

318 Sprinkle v. State (Miss.) 844 State v. Gani (La.)

319 Stallworth, McCreary v. (Ala.). 52 State, Gardner v. (Ala. App.)

914 Standridge, Blackwood v. (Ala.) 108 State v. Gardner (La.).

89 Stanford v. State (Ala. App.). 926 State, Garrett v. (Miss.)

784 Stanley v. State (Ala. App.) 245 State, Germany v. (Ala.)

917 Stanton v. State (Ala. App.). 926 State v. Giangosso (La.)

429 Starr Piano Co. v. Zavelo (Ala.) 795 State v. Gibson (La.)..

192 State, Adams v. (Ala. App.). 919 State v. Gilbert (Ala. App.).

155 State v. Albritton (La.) 683 State, Gilley v. (Ala. App.)

921 State, Alderman v. (Fla.) 737 State, Gipson v. (Ala. App.)

921 State, Aldridge v. (Ala. App.)

785 State, Glenn v., two cases (Ala. App.) 921 State, Alexander v. (Ala. App.) 597 State, Glover v. (Ala. App.)....

921 State, Alexander v. (Ala. App.). 598 State, Goodman v. (Ala. App.)

486 State, Allen v., two cases (Ala. App.) 602 ! State, Gordon v. (Ala. App.)

921 State, Ammons v. (Fla.). 642 State v. Graham (Miss.)

737 State, Armstrong v. (Ala. App.) 919 State v. Green (La.).

665 State, Ashby v. (Miss.) 180 State v. Greer (Fla.)

739 State, Barker v., two cases (Ala. App.).. 919 State, Griffin v. Ala. App.)

921 State, Barnett v. (Ala. App.) 483 State, Griffin v. (Miss.)

184 State, Beasley v. (Miss.). 6 State, Gurley v. (Àla. App.)

921 State, Belton v. (Ala.). 220 State, Guy v. (Ala. App.)

243 State, Bembo v. (Ala. App.) 786 State, Handley v. (Ala.).

628 State, Bennett v. (Ala. App.) 919 State, Harden v. (Miss.)

5 State, Betts v (Miss.).. 783 State, Harper v. Ala. App.)

55 State, Blackman v. (Ala. App.) 147 State, Harris v. (Ala. App.)

921 State, Blackmon v. (Ala. App.)

920
State, Hathorn v. (Miss.)

771 State, Boothe v. (Ala. App.). 920 State, Hayes v. (Ala. App.)

921 State, Breland v. (Miss.) 861 State, Hays v. (Miss.).

860 State, Brent v. (Miss.)

6 State, Heiman v. (Miss.) State, Britt v. (Fla.)... 761 State v. Hemler (La.)..

316 State v. Brodes (La.). 190 State v. Hemler (La.)

504 State, Browne v. (Fla.) 546 State, Henley v. Ala. App.)

927 State, Burden v. (Ala. App.) 464 State, Hewitt v. (Ala. App.)

489 State, Burnett v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, Hill v. (Ala. App.).

922 State, Byrd v. (Ala)..

State v. Hogan (La.).

403 State, Calhoun v. (Miss.) 860 State, Hogland v. (Ala. App.)

784 State, Carnley v. (Fla.).. 333 State, Holley v. (Fla.)..

829 State, Carpenter v. (Miss.). 184 State, Holloman v. (Ala. App.).

922 State v. Carricut (La.). 98 State, Howard v. (Ala. App.)

491 State, Carter v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, Hubbard v. (Ala. App.)

915 State, Carter v. (Miss.).. 784 State, Hunter v. (Miss.).

282 State, Chambliss v. (Miss.). 860 State, Hurd v. (Miss.)

293 State, City of Bradentown v. (Fla.) 556 State, James v. (Ala, App.)

922 State, Clark v. (Ala. App.) 916 State, Johnson v. (Ala.).

897 State, Clark v. Miss.)

7 State, Johnson v., two cases (Ala. App.) 922 State v. Clarke, two cases (Ala. App.).. 926 State, Johnson v. (Fla.)

549 State v. Cloud (Fla.). 13 State, Kaiser v. (Miss.).

5 State, Coggins v (Ala. App.) 241 State, Kidd v. (Miss.).

68 State, Cohen v. (Ala. App.). 920 State, King v. (Miss.).

840 State, Coleman v. (Ala. App.). 915 State, Kuney v. (Fla.).

517 State, Collins v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, Latham v. (Fla.)

551 State, Collins v. (Fla.). 880 State, Lee v. (Ala. App.).

922 State, Conley y. (Ala. App.) 920 State Lee v. (Miss.).

296 State, Conner v. (Ala.). 809 State, Lewis v. (Miss.)

184 State v. Constanza (La.) 507 State, Long v. (Miss.).

736 State v. Copola (La.). 82 State, McBride v. (Ala. App.).

728 State, Crew v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, McClendon v. (Ala. App.).

923 State, Crosby v. (Ala. App.).

459 | State McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co. v. State, Cunningham v. (Miss.). 74 (Ala.)

894 State, Cunningham v. (Miss.) 184 State, McCray v. (Fla.)

831 State, Cushman v. (Ala.) 917 State, McDaniel v. (Ala.)

791 State, Deaton v. (Miss.). 175 State, McDaniel v. (Ala. App.).

788 State, Denmark v. (Fla.)

246 State, McEntire v. (Ala. App.) State, Devine v. Miss.). 75 State. McGee v. (Ala. App.).

923 State, Dickey y. (Ala. App.) 239 State. McGowan v. (Fla.).

890 State, Drummond v. (Ala. App.) 723 State, Mack v. (Ala. App.)

923 State, Drummond v. (Miss.). 183 State, McLain v. (Miss.)...

74 State, Dukes v. (Miss.). 71 State, McLaughlin v. (Ala. App.)

923

923

[ocr errors]

(102 So.) Page

Page State, Maloy v. (Ala. App.). 923 State, Webb v. (Miss.)..

6 State, Marshall v. (Fla.). 650 State, Welch v. (Ala. App.)

914 State, Mathiew v. (Ala. App.) 923 State, West v. (Miss.).

860 State, Miller V (Ala. App): 153 State, Whatley v. (Ala. App.)

927 State, Mobley v. (Ala. App ) 924 State, Williams v. (Miss.)

784 State; Moran v. (Miss.) 74 State, Williamson v. (Ala. App.)

485 State, Moran v. (Miss.) 388 State, Wilson v. (Ala. App.).

927 State, Morgan v. (Ala.). 238 State, Winchester v. (Ala. App.)

535 State, Morgan v. (Ala. App ) 236 State, Winchester v. (Ala. App.)

595 State, Morgan v. (Ala. App.) 462 State, Witcher v. (Ala. App.).

491 State, Morris V. (Ala. App.) 924 State, Wooley v. (Ala, App.).

365 State, Moseley v. (Ala. App.) 727 State, Wooley v. (Ala. App.)

927 State, Motley v. (Ala. App.).... 924 State, Woulard v. (Miss.)

781 State, Nailor v. (Miss.). 784 State, Young v. (Ala.)

369 State, Nelson V., two cases (Ala. App.) 924 State, Young v. (Ala. App.)

366 State, Nelson v. (Miss.). 166 State, Young v. (Miss.).

161 State v. Newman (La.) 671 State, Zollicoffer v. (Miss.)

182 State, Nobles v. (Ala. App.) 148 State, Zorn v. (Ala. App.)

722 State, Nolan y. (Fla.).

827 State Board of Administration, Goodwin v. State, Odom v. (Miss.) 835 (Ala.)

718 State, O'Kelly v. (Ala. App.)

924 State Board of Administration v. Jones State, Orr v. (Ala. App.). 58 (Ala.)

626 State, Owen v. (Ala. App.).

924 State ex rel. Attorney General, Ex parte State, Palumbo v. (Ala. App.) 924 (Ala.)

58 State, Pannell v (Miss.)...

6 State ex rel. Attorney General, Ex parte State, Pate v. (Ala. App.). 156 (Ala.)

147 State, Peavy v. (Ala. App.)

924 State ex rel. Attorney General, Ex parte State, Peavy v. (Ala. App.) 925 (Ala.)

791 State, Pelham v. (Ala. App.).

462 State ex rel. City of Oakdale v, Missouri State v. Penton (La.).

14
Pac. R. Co. (La.)..

86 State, Pickle v. (Miss.)

4 State ex rel. Covington x. Hughes (La.).. 824 State, Pitts v. (Fla.).

551 State ex rel. Glaser v. Vickner (La.).... 593 State, Powell v. (Fla.)

652 State ex rel, St. Peters M. Baptist Church, State, Powell y. (Miss.) 540 Ex parte (Ala.)

793 State v. Prophet (La.)

666 Steed, Nolen Motor Co. v. (Ala, App.) 124 State, Ratliff v. (Ala.). 621 Steeg v. Codifer (La.)

407 State, Reeves v. (Ala. App.)

9:25 Steel Cities Chemical Co., Jenkins v., two State, Reid v. (Ala. App.) 488 cases (Ala.).

918 State, Rhodes v. (Ala.) 919 Stein, State v. (La.).

670 State, River Falls Power Co. v. (Ala.).. 919 Stevens, McJunkins v. (Fla.)

756 State, Robinson v. (Ala.). 693 Stevens v. Spence (Miss.)

572 State, Robinson v., two cases (Ala. App.) 925 Stewart, State v. (La.)...

584 State v. Rogers (La.) 414 Stiles, State v. (Ala.).

901 State, Satterfield v. (Ala.).

691 Stinson v. M. F. Patterson & Son (Ala.).. 912 State v. Schrieber (La.). 678 Stokes, State v. (La.).

664 State, Scott v. (Ala. App.) 152 Stonaker v. State (Ala. App.)

926 State, Shannon v. (Fla.). 829 Stout, In re (La.)..

193 State, Shaw v. (Fla.).. 550 Stout v. Herderson (La.)

193 State, Shipp v. (Miss.).

5 Stowers v. Birmingham (Ala. App.) 926 State, Shoemaker v. (Ala. App.)

925 Strauder v. Tuscaloosa (Ala. App.) 927 State, Short v. (Ala, App.).

925 Strauss v. Insurance Co. of North America State v. Simpson (La.)

810
(La.)

861 State v. Simpson (La.).

813

Strickland v. State (Miss.).
State, Slaughter v. (Ala, App.)

925

Stringfellow v. Nowlin Bros. (La.). 869

Stubblefield v. Wilson (Fla.)..
State, Smith v. (Ala.).
122

885 State, Smith v. Ala. App.)

733

Sturrup, Grand Lodge, etc., v. (Fla.) 560 State, Sommerville v. (Ala, App.)

Succarnochee Lumber Co. v. Smith (Miss.) 302

926
State, Southerland v. (Ala. App.)

926
Swilley V. Swilley (Fla.)

12 State, Soutoula v. (Ala. App.).

151
State, Speed v. (Ala. App.).
926 Tabony, In re (La.).

503
State, Sprinkle v. (Miss.).
814 Tabony, Paul v. (La.)..

503 State, Stanford v. (Ala. App.) 926 Talley, Ex parte (Ala.).

919 State, Stanley v. (Ala. App.) 245 Talley v. Police Jury (La.)

522 State, Stanton v. (Ala. App.)

926 Tampa Drug Co., Peplax Medicine Co. v. State y, Stein (La.) 570 (Fla.)

632 State v. Stewart (La.). 584 Tatum v. State (Ala. App.)

726 State v. Stiles (Ala.) 901 Tayloe v. Davis (Ala.)..

433 State v. Stokes (La.)

664 Taylor v. Desoto Lumber Co. (Miss.) 260 State, Stonaker v. (Ala. App.) 926 Taylor v. State (Ala.)...

919 State, Strickland v. (Miss.) 75 Taylor v. State (Fla.).

884 State v. Tampa (Fla.). 336 Taylor v. State (Miss.)

267 State, Tatum v. (Ala. App.) 726 Teller v. Richter (Fla.).

250 State, Taylor v. (Ala.). 919 Tenhet v. State (Miss.)

861 State, Taylor v. (Fla.)

881 Terry, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 391 State, Taylor v. (Miss.)

267 Thermatomic Carbon Co., Rogers v. (La.) 304 State, Tenhet v. (Miss.) 861 Thierry v. Oswell (Ala.).

903 State, Tipton v. (Ala. App.)

927 | Thomas v. Marine Bank & Trust Co. (La.) 524 State, Turner v. (Miss.). 784 Thomas v. Saulsbury & Co. (Ala.).

115 State, Vaughan v. (Ala.) 222 Thomas, Smart v. (Miss.).

6 State, Ware v. (Ala. App.) 927 Thomas v. Tupelo (Miss.)

783 State v. Watkins (Fla.) 347 | Thompson v. Bedell (Fla.).

12 State, Watson v. (Ala. App.)

492 Tilley, Crosby v. (Miss.)..
State, Watson v. (Ala. App.)
598 Tipton v. State (Ala. App.)

927
State v. Weaver (La.)..
81 | Tobey v. Boagni (La.)...

515

145

Page

Page Town of Crystal Springs v. Smith (Miss.) 302 Welch v. State (Ala. App.)....

914 Town of De Funiak Springs, Cawthon v. Welded Products Co., Ex parte (Ala.).

601 (Fla.)

250 Welded Products Co., Drennen Motor Car Town of Eustis, McClelland v. (Fla.). 159 Co. y. (Ala. App.).

600 Town of Mendenhall, Cabell-Irby Co. v. Wertham Bag Co. v. Roanoke Mercantile (Miss.) 302 Co. (La.)...

412 Town of Newton, Davison v. (Miss.). 161 West, Buttrey v. (Ala.).

456; Town of Vidalia, McNeely y. (La.). 422 West v. State (Miss.)

860 Trahan, City of Lafayette v. (La.)... 409 Western Union Tel, Co., Priester v. (Ala.) 376 Trammel, Feore v. (Ala.)..

529 Western Union Tel. Co., Priester v. (Ala. Travis v. Tuscaloosa (Ala. App.) 927 App.)

372 Tri-State Const, Co. v. Friendship Bap Weydert v. Anderson (La.)

676 tist Church (Ala.) 616 Whatley v. State (Ala. App.)

927 Trowell v. Gulf Fertilizer Co. (Fla.). 559 / Whipple, Bruns v. (Fla.)

560 Turner v. Eastland (Miss.). 545 White, Hubbard v. (Ala.)

699 Turner, Goss v. (La.)... 667 Whitney, McFarland v. (Fla.)

496 Turner, Julius Levy Sons Co. v. (Miss.)., 477 | Whitney Central Trust & Savings Bank v. Turner v. Morrison Hoop Co. (Miss.) 184 Norton (La.)...

306 Turner, Scott v. (Miss.).

467 Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, Turner v. State (Miss.) 784 Tyler v. (La.).

325 Tuscaloosa County, Phillips v. (Ala.) 720 Whittington v. Simrall (Miss.).

572 Tyler, Weathers v. (Fla.).

893 | Wiener-Loeb Grocery Co., Hemsing v. Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings (La.)

303 Bank (La.)...

325 Wiggins, Kyle v. (Ala.)
Wiggins, Kyle v. (Ala. App.)

143 Underhill, Pagoulatos v. (Ala. App.). .... 924 | Wilcutt, Vines V. (Ala.).

29 Union Indemnity Co. of New York, Hossley Wilkins v. Cantwell (Miss.),

6 v. (Miss.). 561 Wilkinson, Engler v. (Miss.)

573 United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Wilkinson v. Morris (Miss.)

185 Co. v. Fuller (Ala.)... 25 Williams, Succession of (La.)

411

Williams v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. (Ala.) 136 Varin, Poston y. (Ala. App.).... 925 Williams, Johnson v. (Ala.)

527 Vaughan v. State Ala.).. 222 | Williams, McCarty v. (Ala.)

133 Vaughan & Sons, In re (La.) 16 Williams v. Massie (Ala.)

611 Veal v. Conn (Ala. App.). 927 ) Williams y. Oates (Ala.)

712 Vickner, In re (La.).. 593 Williams v. State (Miss.)

784 Vickner, State ex rel. Glaser v. (La.) 593 Williams v. Williams (Fla.).

656 Village of Tishomingo v. Finch (Miss.) 185 | Williamson v. State (Ala, App.)

483 Vines v. Wilcutt (Ala.). 29 Wilson, Caldwell v. (Ala. App.)

920 Voyle, Schaefer v. (Fla.). 7 Wilson, McManus v. (Miss.)

513 Wilson v. Miller (Miss.)..

477 Waguespack & Dufresne, E. A. Rainold, Wilson v. State (Ala. App.)

927 Inc., v. (La.). 594 Wilson, Stubblefield v. (Fla.).

885 Walden, Singeltary v. (Fla.) 656 | Winchester v. State (Ala. App.).

535 Waldrop, Mckie v. (Miss.) 573 Winchester v. State (Ala. App.)..

595 Walker y. Young (Fla.). 14 Witcher v. State (Ala. App.).

491 Walker & Co., Arco Co. v. (Miss.)

302 Womack v. Birmingham (Ala. App.). 927 Walls, Decatur Fertilizer Co. v. (Ala.). 32 / Woodward Iron Co., Ex parte (Alal.. 103 Walton V. Tuscaloosa, two cases (Ala. Woodward Iron Co., Lewis v. (Ala.). 103 App.) 927 | Wooley v. State (Ala. App.),

365 W. A. Moore & Sons, Blackburn v. (Ala. Wooley v. State (Ala. App.).

927 App.) 919 Worthington v. Morris (Ala.).

620 Ward, Laurel Mills v. (Miss.) 203 Woulard v. State (Miss.)

781 Ware v. State (Ala. App.) 927 | Wright v. Coleman (Miss.)

774 Warren, Harvey v. (Ala.).

899 Watkins v. Emmerson (Fla.) 10 | Yates v. Council (Miss.)..

176 Watkins, State v. (Fla.)

317 | Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Lucken (Miss.) 393 Watkins Co., Loftin v. (Miss.) 75 Young, Ex parte (Ala.)...

369 Watson, Ex parte (Ala.). 494 Young v. State (Ala.)

369 Watson, Ex parte (Ala.). 599 | Young v. State (Ala. App.)

366 Watson v. Kronberg (Fla.). 655 Young v. State (Miss.).

161 Watson v. State (Ala. App.) 492 | Young, Walker v. (Fla.).

14 Watson v. State (Ala. App.)

598 Watts v. Russell (Miss.) 833 Zavelo, Starr Piano Co. v. (Ala.).

795 Weathers v. Tyler (Fla.) 893 Zimmern's Co. y. Granade (Ala.)

210 Weaver, State v. (La.).... 81 Zollicoffer v. State (Miss.).

182 Weaver' & Sons v. Dumas (Ala.) 603 Zorn. Ex parte (Ala.)

723 Webb v. State (Miss.). 6' Zorn v. State (Ala. App.)

722

See End of Index for Tables of Southern Cases in State Reports

THE

SOUTHERN REPORTER

VOLUME 102

Shannon & Schauber, of Laurel, for appelLAUREL LIGHT & RY. CO. V. JONES. lant. (No. 23932.)

Collins & Collins, of Laurel, and J. T. Tay

lor, of Ellisville, for appellee. (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Oct. 27, 1924. Suggestion of Error Overruled Dec. 15, 1924.)

ETHRIDGE, J. The appellee was plaintiff

in the court below and sued the appellant for (Syllabus by the Court.)

personal injuries and recovered a verdict of 1. Electricity Cm 14(2) Placing uninsulated $10,000. The appellant owns and operates a electric wire in tree branches adjoining school street car system in Laurel, Miss., and an inplayground held negligence.

terurban line from Laurel to Ellisville, and A person or corporation using the danger- its cars run from Laurel to Ellisville and are ous agency of electricity is bound to exercise operated by electricity generated at a power the highest degree of care, and it is negligence plant in Laurel, Miss. In operating its line to place an uninsulated feed wire in the branch- to and through Ellisville, appellant uses not es of trees adjoining a public school playground only the trolley wire but also a feed wire of where such trees are of such nature as would approximately the same size of the trolley attract children to climb them.

wire and carries about the same voltage. 2. Electricity Cm 16(7)–Company held not re. This feed wire is suspended on poles about

lieved from negligence on theory of interven- 20 feet from the ground on the east side of ing efficient cause.

the car tracks, and is attached to the same Where wires highly charged with electricity poles that support the braces that hold up and uninsulated are strung through tops of the trolley wire. In addition to this wire, trees where children habitually play, and a appellant has several small light wires fasschool boy 11 years of age attracted to the tree, tened to cross-arms above this feed wire. and learning that a shock would be received if a person came in contact with the wires so ex

The street car line in entering Ellisville passposed, placed a hay wire on the feed wire so

es along the street just west of the yard of negligently exposed, and a third person was in the Ellisville public school. Adjoining the jured by coming in contact with the hay wire, school lot is what is known as the Anderson the company is liable for the injury; the negli- lot, About 27. or 30 yards north of the school gence of the company in having such a continu- lot and about 8 feet west of the Anderson lot ing situation being a contributing proximate there are six persimmon trees. The defendcause of tbe injury.

ant's feed wires and electric light wires pass 3. Damages w 132(8)-$10,000 for permanent through several of these persimmon trees

injuries to 11 year old boy by contact with about 20 feet from the ground. On the day negligently placed uninsulated electric wire of the injury to the plaintiff four boys about held not excessive.

11 years old attending the Ellisville public The facts of the case examined and con- school planned to shock some one. In fursidered; a verdict for $10,000 for an injury re

therance of this plan, one of the boys got a ceived as shown in the opinion is not excessive. wire, which is referred to in the record as a Anderson, J., dissenting.

"hay wire," bent one end of it, climbed one of

the persimmon trees until up beyond the feed In Banc.

wire, dropped the bent end of the “hay wire" Appeal from Circuit Court, Jones County; over the defendant's uninsulated feed wire, R. S. Hall, Judge.

and called to the plaintiff to take hold of the Action by Silas Jones, by next friend, "hay wire,” which the plaintiff did, and at against the Laurel Light & Railway Com- once both his hands and the heel and toes of pany. From a verdict for plaintiff, defend-one foot were severely burned. The feed wire ant appeals. Affirmed.

of the defendant is insulated within the For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 102 10.-1

limits of the city of Laurel, but is uninsulated , appellee had the right to such reasonable use on its interurban line from the city limits of the streets for its poles and wires as the of Laurel to and through the city of Ellis- conditions existing at the time in the community ville. Plaintiff's testimony shows that the

warranted. On the other hand, the appellant muscles of three fingers of his right hand had the reciprocal right.to what was a reasonwere so severely burned and drawn that the of the appellant and the appellee are mutual

able use of the streets on his part. The rights fingers were bent to the hand, rendering his and reciprocal. Neither could so use his own right hand practically useless; that both rights as to wantonly injure the other. These hands were burned and the heel and toes of two correlative rights, if the law is obeyed, opone foot. The testimony shows that the erate in perfect harmony with each other. school children frequently climbed these per. There are no interferences, and no vacancies simmon trees and discovered that if they in the sphere of their harmonious movement. touched the feed wire they would get a

"The declaration shows that the tree in which shock; that they climbed the trees and touch-sulated wire, was an oak tree, a little tree

this boy was injured, by contact with an unined the wire to get the shock. The trees had abounding in branches extending almost to the been climbed so much that they had been ground—just such a tree as the small boys of worn slick. There was some conflict in the any community would be attracted to, and use, testimony as to whether it was practical to in their play. Whether this appellee knew that insulate the feed wire, and there was some this particular small boy was in the habit of testimony for the defendant that a rusty climbing this tree or not, it is clear from the wire such as the one used by these boys averments of the declaration that it did know would transmit electricity from the feed wire the tree, the kind of tree, and, knowing that,

knew what any person of practical common even if it were insulated.

sense would know—that it was just the kind At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evi- of a tree that children might climb into to play dence, the defendant moved the court to ex- in the branches. It is perfectly idle for the apclude all the testimony introduced for the pellee to insist that it was not bound to have plaintiff and to direct a verdict for the de- reasonably expected the small boys of the fendant. This motion was overruled. After neighborhood to climb that sort of tree. The the conclusion of all of the testimony the fact that such boy would, in all probability, plaintiff requested a peremptory instruction, tree it was, was a fact which, according to ev

climb that particular tree, being the kind of which was also refused.

ery sound principle of law and common sense, The first assignment of error challenges this corporation must have anticipated. The the correctness of the ruling of the court in argument that it did not almost suggests the refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. query whether the individuals composing this It is insisted by the appellant that it is not corporation, its employees and agents, had forliable even though it was negligence on its gotten that they were once small boys thempart to leave its feed wire uninsulated be selves. The immemorial habit of small boys cause it is contended that the act of the boy, to climb little oak trees filled with abundant Cooley, in attaching the hay wire to the feed branches reaching almost to the ground is a wire, was an intervening efficient cause which wires over such trees must take notice. This

habit of which corporations stretching their constituted the proximate cause of the in-court, so far as the exertion of its power in a jury. In the opinion of the court it was neg- legitimate way is concerned, intends to exert ligence for the appellant to place and main that power so as to secure, at the hands of tain an uninsulated feed wire through the these public utility corporations, handling and branches of the trees, such as would attract controlling these extraordinarily dangerous boys of the age of these boys, 10 and 11 years agencies, the very highest degree of skill and

care." of age, into the trees. [1] It is the settled law in this state that

In the case of Potera v. City of Brooka person using electricity for business purposes is charged with the highest degree of haven, 95 Miss. 774, 49 So. 617, this court care in the use of such electricity. In the reiterated the ruling in the Temple Case, sucase of Temple v. McComb Electric Light & pra. Speaking through Justice Smith, the

court said: Power Co., 89 Miss. 1, 42 So. 874, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449, 119 Am. St. Rep. 698, 10 Ann. Cas. “Corporations, private or municipal, engaged 924, this court, speaking through Judge Whit- in the business of transmitting electricity along field, said:

highways, are charged with the very highest de

gree of care for the safety of persons lawfully "The citizens of a municipality have the right using the highway. They must not only propto the reasonable use of the streets, not only on erly erect their plants, but must maintain them their surface, but above their surface. Many in such conditions as not to endanger the pubuses of the streets, or the spaces above the lic. Temple v. Electric Light Co., 89 Miss. 1, 42 streets, may be readily im ined in cities, where So. 874, 11 L, R. A. (N. S.) 449, 119 Am. St. buildings are erected twenty to fifty stories Rep. 698; Walter v. Baltimore Electric Light high, that might not be available in an ordinary Co. (Md.) 71 Atl. 953. The mere fact that this town. The corporations handling the dangerous lamp, with the wires attached thereto, bearagency of electricity are bound, and justly ing their invisible, but deadly, current, had falbound, to the very bighest measure of skill and len into the street, unexplained, was prima care in dealing with these deadly agencies. The facie evidence of negligence on the part of ap

« 이전계속 »