Case Name: Charac J. Van Inwegen, Respondent, v. Port Jervis, Monticello and New York Railroad Company, Appellant. (Actions 1 and 2.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-12-21
Citations: 165 N.Y. 625
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charac J. Van Inwegen, Respondent, v. Port Jervis, Monticello and New York Railroad Company, Appellant. (Actions 1 and 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 165
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Charac J. Van Inwegen, Respondent, v. Port Jervis, Monticello and New York Railroad Company, Appellant. (Actions 1 and 2.)
Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 95, reversed.
(Argued December 12, 1900;
decided December 21, 1900.)
Appeals from judgments of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 1, 1898, affirming judgments in favor of plaintiff entered upon verdicts and orders denying motions for new trials.
Action No. 1 was brought to recover damages for the destruction by fire of standing timber and fences, and action No. 2 was brought to recover damages for the destruction by the same fire of 200 cords of cut wood upon the premises of the plaintiff.
Henry Bacon for appellant.
C. E. Cuddeback for respondent.

Opinion:
Werner, J.
This case cannot be distinguished from Hoffman v. King (160 N. Y. 618). In that case, as in this, it appeared that there were intervening owners between the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. There being no dispute as to this essential fact, the question whether the fire, which was started upon the premises of the defendant, was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff's lands is a question of law for the court and not a question of fact for the jury. This question was in this case submitted to the jury, after the denial of defendant's motions to dismiss at the end of plaintiff's case and at the close of the whole case. The question was further raised by appropriate requests to charge preferred by defendant's counsel. Under the circumstances there is nothing to do but to follow the decision in Hoffma/n v. King (sitpra), upon the authority of which the judgments herein are reversed and new trials granted, with costs to abide the event.
Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O'Brien, Haight and Landon, JJ., concur; Cullen, J., not sitting.
Judgments reversed, etc.