Igg v  ° 1mnni€AL·nnronrma.
= or to averTwhat¤it wouldihavecost the railroad company to transport the
coal; orwh at=would have been a reasonable interest on the money invested
I in the railroad-enterprise; thosearel matters of evidence. It is true the
language is general; but I think, as against an objection raised by de·
murrer,'the‘language is sufficient. =   ` i I
The third count is simply thecommon-law count for money had and
· received. ? I presume that such acount is good in Colorado, as 1t 1S most
anywhere else, under the Code, as against any objection that can be
raised by demurrer. ‘ ` it '
i   The¤dem,urrer to the second and third counts will be overruled. `
.l - V     l A
I   lrii l l McDoNAm> ·v. Umor: Pac. RY. Co. .
  i n   ' (Oircuit Oourt, D. Oolorado. May 8, 1888.)
Nn¤nrenNon—Duennons Pma:msns—TansrAssnn. _
_ , . {Phe complaint alleged that defendant company, in operating its coal mine,
V sank a shaft. and threw out a pile of slack, (on its own ground;) that the
* slack caught fire, and smouldered for a long time, until the pile sank to
. the surface of the ground, on the top nothing appearing but lifeless ashes,
but there being live coals underneath; that this slack was contiguous to a
_ town of 700 inhabitants; that it was _not fenced in. and that no notice was
posted to warn persons of the danger; that plaintiff, a boy 12 years of age,
and a stranger in the town, being threatened by some miners, and iieeing from
V them, _ran across the slack, supposing it to be nothing but ashes, and was se-
verely burned. Held, that the complaint was demurrable, defendant having
n rightlto put the slack on its own ground, and plaintiff being a mere tres-
, passer.
A At Law. On demurrer to complaint.
O. S. Tlwmas, for plaintiff. V
V Willard Teller, for defendant.
Banwnn, J. In the case of McDonald against The Union Pacific Rai]-
_ way Company there is a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint al-
leges that the defendant railway corporation owns and operates a coal
mine in the town of Erie; that it sank a shaft, and in the prosecution of
its work threw out a pile of slack ; that that slack caught hre, or was set
on Eire, and smouldered for a long time, till the pile sank to the surface
of the adjacent soil. On the top appeared nothing but lifeless ashes; un-
jderneath there were live coals. This plaintiff`, a boy of 12 years of age,
a stranger in the town, was threatened by some miners, and, fleeing from
them, ran across this slack, thinking it nothing but ashes. The moment
he put his foot on it he sank into the hot coals, and was burned. For
that injury he sues the railroad company.
i' Uiespecting the subject of dangerous premises, and the liability for injuries sustained
gy those who are expressly or impliedly induced or allured thereon, see Oil-Mills Co. v.
oftey, (Ga.) 4 S. E. Rep. 759, and note; Nichols’ Adm’r v. Railroad Co., 97:2..) 5 S. E.
Rep. 171; Splittorf v. State, (N. Y.) 15 N. E. Rep. 322; Clarke v. City 0 Richmond.
(Va.) 5 S. E. Rep. 369; Railway Co. v. Barnhart, (Ind.) 16 N. E. Rep. 121.