Court Opinion

ID: 8630595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:37:02.761032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:45.300800
License: Public Domain

TANEY, Circuit Justice.
1. In order to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it must be shown, by the evidence, that the property was destroyed by a riotous and tumultuous assemblage, too strong to be resisted w'ithout the aid of the civil authority.
2. It must appear also, that the city authorities had reasonable ground for believing that such an assemblage, too strong to be resisted without their aid, had taken place, or was about to take place, and did not use reasonable diligence to suppress or prevent it.
3. If it was destroyed by a tumultuous or riotous meeting, yet the corporation is not responsible, if diligent inquiry was made, after notice that danger was apprehended, and reasonable precautions taken by the civil authorities to guard against such a riotous and tumultuous assemblage.
4. Nor are they answerable, If the injury was done upon a sudden excitement, which the civil authorities had not good reason to apprehend, or, from the suddenness, had not time to prevent.
5. The city authorities were not bound to place officers or guards to prevent trespasses and depredations, and are not liable for any destruction, unless committed by a riotous and tumultuous assemblage, too strong to be resisted without the aid of the civil authority, and which tumultuous assemblage the civil authorities had reasonable ground to believe would take place, for the purpose of destroying the property.
Verdict for the defendant.
Some evidence was offered to prove that the property was so dilapidated that it was a nuisance, and dangerous to enter. As no point was made on this evidence, it was not noticed in the opinion; but THE COURT were clearly of opinion that, if it was a nuisance, it was no defence to this action; it could not be lawfully abated by a riotous and tumultuous assemblage.