Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/58

 Company, for damages caused by a prairie fire set by one of defendant’s locomotives. Judgment for plaintiff. DefentantDefendant [sic] appeals.

Reversed.

W. F. Ball and J. S. Watson, (John C. Bullitt, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.

Section 5097, Comp. Laws of N. D., is identical with § 580, Code of Civil Procedure of California. Under this section it has been held that if there is an answer, the court may disregard the prayer in the complaint and give the plaintiff suitable relief. Zruebody v. Jacobson, 2 Cal. 283; N.C. & S. C. Co. v. Kidd, 37 Cal. 301; Cassacia v. Pheniz Co., 28 Cal. 628. Until it is in some way shown by the record that the sum demanded is not the matter in dispute, that sum will govern in all questions of jurisdiction; but when it is shown that the sum demanded is not the real matter in dispute, the sum shown and not the sum demand, will prevail. Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578; Platt v. Phenix Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 730; Hullscamp v. Teel, 2 Dallas 358; Gordon v. Longist, 16 Pet. 97; Barry v. Edmonds, 116 U. S. 550. The presumption of negligence cast upon defendant by proof that it set out the fire, is a presumption of law and not of fact. In Johnson v. N. P. R. R. Co., 1 N. D. 3543 S. C., 48 N. W. Rep. 227; it is said that proof of the setting out of fire creates a disputable presumption of negligence. This decision established the same rule with respect to imputed negligence in fire cases as already existed by force of statute in stock- killing cases. Section 5501, Comp Laws. This section of statute construed in, Volkman v. C, St. P. M. & O. R. R. Co, § Dak. 69; S. C., 37 N. W. Rep. 731; Knapp v. Bank, 5 Dak. 378; S.C., 40 N. W. Rep. 587; Gay v. R. R., 5 Dak. 514; S.C., 4 N. W. Rep. 757; Huber v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,6 Dak. 392; Pattee v. C. M. & St. P. R. R. Co., 5 Dak. 267; S. C.; 38 N. W. Rep. 435. It isa question for the court to determine when this prima facie evidence is overcome. Ratlroad Co. v. Wamscott, 3 Bush. 149; Railroad Co. v. Talbot, 78 Ky. 621; Railroad v. Packwood, 7 A. & E. R. R. C. 584; where the rebutting testimony is as broad