
    *The President and Councilmen of the Town of Dawson, plaintiff in error, vs. Edward Kuttner, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    Destruction of Property — Eminent Domain. — Where the authorities of a town destroy a house to prevent the spread of a fire, and in so doing cause the destruction of personal effects in said house, which would not otherwise have been destroyed, the town is liable to the owner of the goods for the damages, even though the owner of the goods is only a tenant in the house. The verdict in this case is not illegal, as contrary to the testimony.
    Eminent domain. New trial. Before Judge Harreee. Terrell Superior Court. June Term, 1872.
    Edward Kuttner brought case against the President and Councilmen of the town of Dawson, and alleged that defendant had injured him in the sum of $1,190 00,-in this: that on the night of February 22d, 1871, a fire broke out in the town of Dawson, at from seventy-five to one hundred yards from the store occupied by the plaintiff; that defendant, before it became necessary to arrest the progress of the flames, by its agents, tore down the plaintiff’s house, thereby preventing him from removing his stock of goods, damaging him to the amount above stated.
    The defendant pleaded the general issue.
    The following evidence was introduced:
    Edward Kuttner, the plaintiff, testified as follows: On the
    night of February 22d, 1871, a fire broke out in the hotel in the town of Dawson, som$ fifty or seventy-five yards from the storehouse of plaintiff. Plaintiff commenced moving his goods, when N. G. Greer, one of the Town Council, and acting as Mayojr, told . him to stop, as they were about to tear down his house. The amount claimed in the declaration is only about fifty per cent, of his losses. Plaintiff was prevented from removing his goods by the tearing down of his house by the people, under the authority of the defendant. The goods were burnt up. Plaintiff did not tell Mr. Atkinson that he had removed all of his goods of any value before the house was torn down; did not tell him that the boxes left *in the house were empty, and that the crockery left was of very little value. There was no insurance on the goods. Plaintiff begged Mr. Greer not to allow his house to be torn down. The work of tearing the house down rendered it unsafe to go near.
    EVIDENCE EOR THE DEPENDANT.
    Henry Atkinson testified as follows: On approaching plaintiff’s store on the night of the fire, witness discovered some boys pulling off the weather-boards; witness stopped them, saying, plaintiff must have time to remove his goods; then went to the door of the store, but could not get in, it being so crowded with men bringing out goods; after the door was cleared, witness went in and told plaintiff that he would have ample time to remove his goods; after the lapse of some fifteen or twenty minutes, witness returned and found no one at work; saw plaintiff standing inside the store alone; asked him if he had removéd all of his goods; he replied, “I think I have got all out of any valueseeing some boxes, witness asked him what was in them; he replied, “they are all empty;” witness feeling something soft under his feet, which he thought might be matting or bagging, asked him what it was; he replied, “it might be some old corn sacks;” witness then turned to go out,of the house, saying to the plaintiff, that if he was ready, they would proceed to tear down the house; before leaving the house, witness told him that there were some pieces of crockery on the shelves; he replied, “what remains is of very little value.” The work of removing had stopped when witness went into the store, because there were no goods left. The building was just as safe when the posts were out as any other building.
    
      N. C. Greer testified as follows: Witness did not tell or order Mr. Kuttner to stop removing his goods because they were going to tear down his house. Witness was not acting on that night as Mayor; Dr. Farnum was Mayor, and witness thinks he was in town, representing himself. Told plaintiff that he had plenty of time to remove his goods. The fire *was in the house next to plaintiff’s before his was pulled down. Plaintiff requested witness to stop them from pulling down his house. Witness gave no orders to Mr. Cozart on that night. Witness acted as President of the Council in the absence of Dr. Farnum.
    William R. Cozart testified as follows: Witness was acting as marshal on the night of the fire; was about plaintiff’s store after a portion of the weather-boards were removed; saw some crockery and pot ware on that side of the house, but cannot state its value; the house was pulled down, and this was necessary to save the remainder of the town above his store; during the first part of the fire witness was engaged elsewhere under the direction of Mr. Greer, taking care of goods, placing guards over them, etc. Mr. Greer acted, as President of the Council in the absence of Dr. Farnum.
    H. S. Lee testified as follows: Witness’ brother was keeping store in the house just below plaintiff’s; witness assisted his brother in removing his goods; all the goods were removed to a place of safety before any attempt was made at tearing down plaintiff’s house; all the goods below plaintiff’s were saved; plaintiff had a large stock of goods in his house, and the day after the fire when he placed his goods in another store, he still had a large stock.
    James É. Lee testified as follows: When witness arrived at plaintiff’s store on the night of the fire, he commenced removing goods, but soon quit to assist in tearing down the house. The reason that he did this was because he thought he could do more good tearing down the house than in removing the goods; plaintiff had some goods burned; cannot say how many.
    REBUTTAL.
    The plaintiff, reintroduced, testified as follows: In plaintiff’s conversation with Mr. Atkinson about the removal of his goods, he had reference to the goods damaged by pulling off the weatherboarding of his house, preparatory to cutting it down.
    The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $600 00. *The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, because the declaration failed to show any liability on the part of defendant, and for a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
    Both motions were overruled, and the defendant excepted upon each of the grounds aforesaid.
    F. M. Harper, by Clark & Goss, for plaintiff in error.
    Wooten & PIoylé, for defendant.
    
      
      Destruction of Property — Eminent Domain. — The principal case is referred to in Savannah v. Mulligan, 95 Ga. 325, 22 S. E. Rep. 621, as illustrating § 2226, Civil Code. See Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 9, p. 133.
    
   McCay, Judge.

The Revised Code, section 2200, says: “Analogous to the right of eminent domain, is the power, from necessity, vested in corporate authorities of cities and towns and counties to interfere with, and some times to destroy, the private property of the citizens for the public good, such as the destruction of houses to prevent the spread of a conflagration, or the taking possession of buildings to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In all such cases, any damages accruing to the owner from such acts, and which would not otherwise have been sustained, must be paid by such corporation.”

It is argued that a corporation is only liable for houses and buildings it may destroy, under this section of the Code, and that damages are not recoverable for personal property, whether in the house or not, and that none but the owner of the house can sue. But we think this is not a fair criticism upon the language used, and would, if adopted, be not only unjust to the citizen whose property is destroyed, but would be a limitation on the power of a town, city or county, often seriously hurtful. Suppose a fire is about to reach a board-yard, or a lot of loosely packed cotton, or a quantity of any other combustible material, classed -as personal property, must' the flames be permitted to go on because the public dare not treat this trumpery stuff as it might a man’s house — his castle — the home of his family?

The law is broad enough to cover any kind of property, ^personal or real. The first words used are, “the private property of the citizen.” This is very comprehensive language. Section 5 of the Code says, “property” means, in the Code, “real or personal property.” The after language, in which the more limited words, as houses and buildings, are used, merely gives instances. 'The words are, “such as houses,” etc. So, too, the use of the word “owner” ■ has plain reference to the owner of the property damaged.

We shall not undertake to go over this evidence and weigh it. The jury of the vicinage has done that, and the Judge has refused to interfere, with it, nor will we. The evidence is conflicting, and in such cases we have neither the wish nor the right to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.  