Hyperlawhypertext legal database Rector, &c. of the Church of the Ascension v. Buckhart 3 Hill & Den. 193

← Cases

Rector, &c. of the Church of the Ascension v. Buckhart

3 Hill & Den. 193 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 193
The Rector, &c. of the Church of the Ascension vs. Buckhart.

Headnote

An action on the case may be maintained against a private corporation for an injury resulting from their negligence.
Accordingly, where the walls of a church edifice belonging to a religious incorporation were negligently permitted to stand after the rest of the building had been destroyed by fire, and a part of the wall afterwards fell upon a person while passing along the street; held, that the corporation were liable to respond in damages for the injury.
Error to the New-York C. P., w.here a verdict was rendered for the defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Ward 4" Huggins, for the plaintiffs in error.
C. Nagle, for the defendant in error.

This was a special action on the case against the defendants below, a private corporation, to recover damages for a serious injury to the plaintiff, incurred through the negligence of the former in not taking down the walls of a church belonging to them, in Canal-street, after the rest of the building had been consumed by fire. The walls were much damaged and left in too weak and unsafe a condition to be allowed to remain standing. A portion was after-wards blown down, burying the plaintiff, while passing along upon the side-walk, in the ruins.

The question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury, who found against the defendants in the court below, and the sole point now to be determined is, whether the action will lie against a corporation. We are clearly of opinion that it will. The following authorities are decisive in favor of maintaining it, and sustain the judgment of the court below : Yar

p. 194
borough v. The Bank of England, (16 East) 6 ;) Townsend y. The Susquehannah Turnpike Co.) (6 John. R. 90 ;) The Chestnut Hill Spring House Turnpike Co. v. Rutter, ( 4 Serg. & Rawle, 6 ;) Matthews v. West London Water Works Co., (3 Campb. 403 ;) Gibson v. Inglis, (4 id. 72 ;) Duncan v. The Sur rey Canal Co., (3 Stark. R. 50 ;) Sutton v. The Bank of England, (1 Cafr. 4" Payne, 193 ;) 2 Kent’s Com. 284 ; Angel <Sp Ames on Corporations, 220.

Judgment affirmed.