Schenck

This action is based on a charge of negligence against the defendant, who appeals from a judgment against him. The case as presented by the findings is as follows: Plaintiff was the owner of a surveyor’s transit which a party of his employees were using in surveying. They carelessly and negligently left it standing in a certain public road so as to obstruct travel thereon. Thereupon, an employee of the defendant, driving a brush-laden wagon, came along this road, plainly saw the transit in plenty of time to avoid running into it and attempted to drive around it, but carelessly and negligently knocked it over, causing damage for which the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was given.

On this appeal no objection is made to the sufficiency of the findings which we have thus briefly summarized, but defendant contends that the evidence does not support the findings as to his negligence. We think this contention cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that plaintiff’s employees set up the transit in the middle of the traveled part of the road and left it there unattended for fifteen minutes or more. On their return they found it knocked over and injured. On this day, defendant had two…