The Indianapolis journal., 1885-07-01

A Lawsuit that Possesses Great Interest for
Railway officials and Insurance Men.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
VINCENNEs June 30-The case Of J. A. & j.
FL. Cunningham against the Evansville & Terre
Haute Railroad Company is one of the most
important cases in the annals of railroad litiga-
ton in this country, and excites widespread
interest among railroad officials as well as bust
ness circles and brief resume Of the leading
features of the case will be interesting at this
time. In the month of July, 1879, the Messrs
Gun nngham owned and operated very extensive
starch and glucose works, situated short dis
tance north of the city, on the line of the
Evansville g. Terre Haute railroad Between
II and o'clock, noon, on the 9th of hatmonth,
fire was discovered in the shelling room, and IN
a few moments the vast establishment was one
mass of flames, and was totally destroyed. 1t
was one of the most important manufacturing
industries we had, and, in fact, was one Of the
most important in southern Indiana, and over
$50 hands were thrown out of employment. The
Messrs. Cunningham claimed that the fire orig
mated from the sparks thrown out by
a passing locomotive on the defendants
railroad This, of course, the company
denied. They also claimed that, as the Cunning
hams were insured and collected the
insurance, the insurance companies were sub
rogated to their rights and could alone maintain
the action. This view Of the law was enter
tanned by the Knox Circuit Court The Gun
inghams sued the railroad, however for $780,
900. The case was tried in the summer of 1881,
both sides being represented by some of the
ablest lawyers in this city, and the railroad COM
pany having, in addition, several of the leading
members of the bar of Evansville and Terre
Haute. It occupied some two weeks in the
trial, and was very sharply contested on both
sides. The judges rulings throughout gen
orally against the plaintiffs, and under his in
structons the jury returned a verdict for the
railroad company The plaintiffs, believing they
had good case On its evidence, and feeling that
they had been unfairly treated in the trial, under
the advice of their counsel, appealed to the
Supreme Court. This court, in exhaustive
and able opinion, prepared by Judge Howk,
versing the decision of the lower court, lays
down the law applicable to such cases, and holds
that the wrong doer cannot relieve himself from
liability or claim any advantage by the reason
of the property owners having insured his
buildings against fire; and when railroad,
through its carelessneSs, either in the construc
ton OF It's locomotives, or in their management.
burns property contiguous to it's line of road, it
must pay the loss sustained, notwithstanding
the owner was fully insured. In brief the Su
preme Courts position is as follows, with author
tiles quoted: I'm action for property de-
stroyed by fire. where it is claimed that plaintiffs
property was consumed and destroyed by de-
PENDANTS actionable negligence, it is no defense
that plaintiffs property was insured for its full
value, and he has received the insurance money
In such case the plaintiff is entitled to recover
entire loss from the defendant. and the fact that
the insurance companies in which the property
was insured had paid the amount of such in
surance to them cannot constitute any defense.
(35 N. j., Law. 400 103 Mass, 219: 105 Mass,
213 IL Mich. a.; SO Bart. $50; 81 H., $685. 25
Conn, 2G5; 80 Mimi, 253; II n. j., 574) Nor
can the payment of insurance money be used in
mitigation of damages against the wrong doer. The
insurance is something with which the wrong
doer has nothing to do, and whether received by
the plaintiff or not is nc concern of such wrong
doer, can he have any benefit from it. Il
Luth. on Damages, 242 Al Ind, 1S4; 81 Ind, 3l7)
The magnitude of the case the amount involved
being some $500, 600, and the very able manner
in which the court discusses the questions, ali the
authorities both European and American, bear
ing upon the question, and including fire, life
and marine insurance, being carefully reviewed.
will make it one the leading cases on this branch
of law in our American jurisprudence. Other
questions arising in the also passed
upon, but this is the which principally con-
Germs the people. The case WILL of course, be
tried again The decision of the Supreme Court
was held in this for four years.