Case Name: PALMETTO MOSS FACTORY et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.; MEYER et al. v. SAME
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1916-05-09
Citations: 145 La. 555
Docket Number: No. 21926
Parties: PALMETTO MOSS FACTORY et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. MEYER et al. v. SAME.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., dissents from the conclusion of fact.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 555–567

Head Matter:
(82 South. 700)
No. 21926.
PALMETTO MOSS FACTORY et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. MEYER et al. v. SAME.
(May 9, 1916.
On the Merits, June 29, 1918.
On Rehearing, June 30, 1919.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and Error &wkey;394(l) — Judgment in Favor of Two Plaintiffs — Separate Orders or Appeal Bonds.
Where, though the amount which defendant was condemned to pay was apportioned between the two plaintiffs in whose favor judgment was rendered, yet only one judgment was rendered, it was not necessary that defendant as appellant should have obtained two orders of appeal or furnished two appeal bonds.
On the Merits.
2. Railroads <&wkey;453 — Liability for Fires.
No liability to answer in damages for injuries caused by fires along its tracks set by locomotives attaches to a railroad in the absence of negligence.
On Rehearing.
3. Railroads <&wkey;482(4) — Setting Fire — Liability.
Railroad under the facts held liable for damages which it caused by setting fire with a spark from one of its locomotives to a moss factory leased by one plaintiff to another.
4. Damages &wkey;>40(3) — Setting Fire — Recovery of Profits.
A moss factory, whose buildings and stock were destroyed by fire set by a spark from defendant railroad’s locomotive, was not entitled to the allowance of damages from the loss of prospective profits on the sale of moss.
5. Damages <&wkey;lll — Setting Fire — Recovery for Building.
Owner of a building leased to a moss factory, as against a railroad which set fire to the premises by a spark, held not entitled to recover as for a new building, hut for the actual value of the property destroyed with a deduction from the figures submitted on the cost of construction to cover depreciation.
Provosty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry; B. H. Pavy, Judge.
Suits by the Palmetto Moss Factory and another and by Charles Meyer and another against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals, and plaintiffs move to dismiss.
Motions to dismiss the appeals overruled, and judgments for plaintiffs amended by reducing the amounts recovered; otherwise affirmed.
William H. Peterman, of Alexandria, and Howe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke, of New Orleans, for appellant.
M. M. Boatner, of New Orleans, and John W. Lewis, of Opelousas, for appellees Meyer and German Fire Ins. Co.
E. B. Dubuisson, of Opelousas, and M. M. Boatner, of New Orleans, for appellees Palmetto Moss Factory and German Fire Ins. Co.

Opinion:
On Motions to Dismiss Appeals.
O'NIELL, J.
These two suits were filed separately, but, as the cause of action in each case arose from the same occurrence, and as the testimony was applicable to both suits, they were consolidated for the purpose of the trial. The demands are for damages alleged to have been sustained by the destruction by fire of a building owned by the plaintiff Charles Meyer, and of the contents, consisting of machinery and stock owned by the plaintiff Palmetto Moss Factory. The plaintiffs allege that the fire was caused by sparks from the locomotive of the defendant railway company.
In the first suit the Palmetto Moss Factory claimed compensation for an alleged loss of $2,791.75, of which the German Fire Insurance Company paid $719.51, was subrogated pro tanto to the claim against the railway company, and is a plaintiff in this suit. The prayer of the petition was that the plaintiffs have judgment for the sum of $2,791.75.
In the other suit Charles Meyer claimed compensation for an alleged loss of $3,164.06, of which the German Fire Insurance Company paid $1,000, was subrogated pro tanto to the claim against the railway company, and is a plaintiff in the suit. The prayer of the petition was that the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendant for $3,164.06.
The plaintiffs in the one suit, therefore, are the Palmetto Moss Factory and the German Fire Insurance Company, and the plaintiffs in the other suit are Charles Meyer and the German Fire Insurance Company. The petitioners did not in either suit pray that a separate judgment be rendered in favor of each plaintiff.
The eases having been tried together, a separate judgment was rendered in each case. In the case of the Palmetto Moss Factory and the German Fire Insurance Company one item of loss was reduced $150 by the court, and judgment for the balance of $2,641.75 was rendered and apportioned thus: It was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Palmetto Moss Factory recover of and from the defendant railway company $1,-922.24, with legal interest from the date of the judgment; and it was further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the German Fire Insurance Company recover of and from the defendant railway company $719.51, with legal interest fgom the date of the judgment. The defendant was condemned to pay all costs. In the case of Charles Meyer and the German Fire Insurance Company judgment was rendered for the full sum claimed, apportioned thus: It was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Charles Meyer recover of and from the defendant railway $2,164.06, with legal interest from the date of the judgment; and it was further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the German Fire Insurance Company recover of and from the defendant railway company $1,000, with legal interest from the date of the judgment. The defendant was condemned to pay all costs.
The defendant railway company moved for and obtained a separate order of appeal in each case, and furnished only one appeal bond in each case for an amount exceeding by one-half the sum allowed both plaintiffs; that is, one bond for one-half over and above the total sum allowed the Palmetto Moss Factory and the German Fire Insurance Company in one case, and another bond for one-half over and above the total sum allowed Charles Meyer and the German Fire Insurance Company in the other case.
Each of the three appellees has filed a separate motion to dismiss the appeals, on the ground that two separate appeal bonds should have been filed in each case. They rely upon the ruling in the Successions of P. C. Clairteaux and U. Clairteaux, 35 La. Ann. 1178, as a precedent for a dismissal of the appeals in this case.
In the case cited each succession was represented by a different administratrix; and it appears that Ferdinand Samuel filed an opposition to the account of one, and Jules Samuel filed an opposition to the account of the other administratrix. The oppositions were not tried together, but were consolidated after the judgments were rendered. A separate judgment was rendered dismissing the opposition in each case. The opponents obtained two separate orders of appeal, but filed only one appeal bond; and, on motion of the appellees, the appeals were dismissed.
In the case before . us, although the amount which the defendant was condemned to pay was apportioned between the two plaintiffs in whose favor the judgment was rendered, only one judgment was rendered in each case. Hence it was not necessary that the defendant, as appellant, should have obtained two orders of appeal or furnished two appeal bonds in each case. The decision in the case of La Groue and Wife v. City' of New Orleans, 114 La. 254, 38 South. 160, and the cases there cited, are precedents for this ruling.
The motions to dismiss the appeals are overruled.