Majority
As regards the request not to give notice to the sureties, made by Walker to the appellants, that had no reference to any further suretyship which might be entered into by the respondents.
It was a mere request to forbear from enforcing the sureties' liability srocV Co. under the current bond, the arrearages secured by which were soon after settled to the satisfaction of the The Chief respondents.
Justice. In my opinion the appeal must be allowed, the order of the Court of Appeal vacated, and the judgment of the trial judge restored with costs to the appellants in all the courts.
Judgment of the Court
J.-On the 25th day of April, 1889, about two o'clock in the morning, the appellant's store and other buildings, situated at Stanbridge station on the railway line of the respondent, were- consumed by fire. He contends that the fire was caused by a spark from the engine of one of the company's trains, and through the fault, negligence, imprudence or want of skill of its employees and servants, and demands $30,000 damages. Another similar case had been previously taken by one Lamoureux and others against the Mutual Insurance Co. of Montmagny, and the said railway company defendant in warranty, for loss arising out of the same fire. The Court of Appeal held in the latter case that the plaintiff in warranty had failed to prove that the fire was caused by any fault of the railway company. In the present case, the evidence adduced in the case of Lamoureux was filed by consent of parties and some additional evidence was also adduced, which did not however change substantially the evidence already taken as to the origin of the fire. Both the Superior Court and the Court of Review were of the opinion that the origin of the fire was still a mystery. There seems to be no doubt that it originated in the woodshed of the company, but this is not sufficient to constitute a fault within art. 1053 of the Civil Code. After