101 U.S. 16 (1880)
In November 1872, a large fire broke out in Boston.1 Charles H. Hall was the lessee and occupant of the premises described in the declaration.2 The fixtures, merchandise, and tools in his leased space were valued at $60,000, and his leasehold interest was worth $10,000.3 The fire did not originate in Hall's building, but the structure and its contents were threatened as the blaze spread.4 Three fire engineers present at the scene ordered the building to be demolished to halt the fire's progress.5 The building was blown up and destroyed, which stopped the fire from advancing further.6 As a result, Hall's premises became unfit for use, and his personal property was destroyed.7
The plaintiff, as assignee of Hall's bankrupt estate, brought suit against the City of Boston to recover for these losses.8 The claim rested on Massachusetts statutes authorizing designated officers to order the demolition of buildings during fires and providing for compensation to owners when such action stops the fire, provided the building was not the origin point.9 A Boston city ordinance established a fire department consisting of a chief engineer and thirteen assistants, granting them authority to order demolitions when three or more engineers, including the chief if present, deemed it necessary.10
The case was initially tried in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.11 The presiding judge directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant city.12 The plaintiff excepted to this ruling, included all trial evidence in the record, and appealed via writ of error to the Circuit Court.13 That court affirmed the District Court's judgment.14 A subsequent writ of error brought the matter before the Supreme Court for review.15
At trial, evidence included testimony from the mayor, who was present but provided no details on consultations regarding the specific building.16 The chief engineer testified that he and the engineers did not direct the blowing up of buildings by gunpowder when he was present.17 General Burt, who carried out the demolition using a written authorization from the chief engineer, stated that he did not consult with three engineers after starting the scheme.18 No evidence showed that three engineers had jointly consulted about or specifically ordered the destruction of Hall's particular building.19
Whether the evidence established that three fire engineers jointly consulted and specifically ordered the demolition of Hall's particular building as required by the Massachusetts statute and Boston ordinance?20
The Massachusetts statute requires that three or more designated officers jointly consult, determine the necessity of destroying a particular building to stop the fire, and issue a joint order for its demolition; the Boston ordinance imposes the same requirements on the fire engineers.21
No. The chief engineer testified he and the engineers did not direct the blowing up of buildings by gunpowder when he was present.22 He did not know of any such direction by three engineers.23 General Burt testified that he did not consult with three engineers after starting the scheme.24 No evidence in the record demonstrates that three engineers ever jointly consulted about or specifically ordered the destruction of Hall's particular building.25
The evidence did not establish compliance with the statutory prerequisites for recovery.26
Whether the district court properly directed a verdict for the defendant city on the ground that the plaintiff's evidence failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for recovery?27
In a civil case, whenever the state of the evidence is such that a verdict for a party would not be warranted, and the opposing party would be entitled to a new trial, the judge has the right and duty to direct the jury to return a verdict according to the court's view of the evidence.28
Yes. The plaintiff failed to prove the joint consultation and specific order by three engineers that the statute and ordinance require for recovery.29 The chief engineer's and General Burt's testimony affirmatively disproved the existence of any such joint action regarding Hall's building.30 Because the evidence could not support a verdict for the plaintiff, the directed verdict for the city was required.31
The district court properly directed a verdict for the defendant city.32