
    HJALMAR RUSTAD v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    
    October 30, 1914.
    Nos. 18,918—(151).
    •liability as warehouseman — question for jury.
    Upon an issue as to tbe liability of tbe defendant railway company for tbe destruction of the property of the plaintiff by fire when in its possession as warehouseman, after reaching its shipping destination, it is held that it did not, as a matter of law, establish its freedom from negligence, and that the court properly submitted the case to the jury.
    Action in tbe district court for Pennington county 'to recover $1,-150. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe case was tried before Grindeland, J., wbo denied defendant’s motions for dismissal of tbe action and for a directed verdict in its favor, and a jury wbicb returned a verdict for $660. From tbe judgment entered pursuant to tbe order for judgment, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      M. L. Countryman and A. L. Janes, for appellant.
    
      O. Halvorson, for respondent.
    
      
       Uepoi'ted in 149 N. W. 304.
    
   Dibell, 0.

Tbis is an appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff in an action to recover damages for tbe loss by fire of property shipped by tbe plaintiff over tbe railroad of tbe defendant and in its possession at tbe time. Tbe case was bere before and is reported in 122 Minn. 453, 142 N. W. 727. Upon that appeal, wbicb was by tbe plaintiff from an order refusing a new trial, we beld that tbe facts made a question for tbe jury upon tbe liability of tbe defendant for tbe destruction by fire of tbe property of tbe plaintiff while in its possession as warehouseman. Tbe trial court bad beld that there was no liability. A new trial was therefore granted. Upon tbe new trial tbe plaintiff bad a verdict.

The facts appearing at the former trial will be found by reference to the opinion. They are substantially the same on this trial. There may be added these: In the afternoon of the day of the fire .the inspector of the defendant broke the seals of the car, made a casual examination, and closed the door. He directed the warehouseman to seal it. He did so some time before six o’clock. At that time he opened the door sufficiently to identify the ear by its contents, closed it, and attached the seals. The door was not locked from the time the inspector opened it until sealed. There was no other merchandise in the car.

The merchandise was packed with sisel and burlap. The fire occurred along in the evening. It concededly originated from the inside. It smouldered there for a considerable time before breaking out.

The duty of the defendant in respect of showing its freedom from negligence was stated on the former appeal. The facts are not more favorable to the defendant than on the former trial. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the defendant sustained the burden of proof; and the trial court properly submitted the case to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.  