90 S.E. 318 | S.C. | 1916
September 5, 1916. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This trial is a sequel to that reported in
Had the Circuit Court proceeded, as it was empowered by consent of counsel to do, and found from the testimony at the former trial, or from testimony de novo, that the defendant set out the fire, that would have been an end of the matter. The Court did not do that. It was not adjudged by this Court, and it could not have been adjudged, that a verdict betwixt the Farmers Mercantile Company and the railroad company was conclusive in the trial betwixt the three insurance companies and the railroad company; as betwixt them, the fact of who set the fire has not yet been determined. *45
Had the Farmers Mercantile Company sued only the railroad company, and had the verdict been for the Farmers Company for the total loss of $6,500, and had the insurance company thereupon paid the Farmers Company the policies and then sued the railroad company for subrogation the insurance companies might plainly not contend in that suit that the act of burning had been fixed on the defendant. Yet in effect that is the case the insurance companies now make.
The judgment below is reversed, and a new trial is ordered.